It will break before you outgrow it. That's what the statistics predict anyway. HDDs tend to have a much longer MTBF than SSDs, so you may want to take extra care of those backups.
This is completely backwards. SSDs have a *much* longer MTBF than HDDs; up to 20 times longer. But I'm willing to stand corrected if you have some up-to-date data that says different. Do you?
I learned rather early on that "man" gave you a small manual to a command. But I could never figure out how to EXIT the manual... there was a period where I had to reboot after looking up each reference. So typing "man man" should yield appropriate research --- only, the man page for man does not in fact tell you that you need to type "Q" to return to the command line.
You never tried typing "help" when you were viewing the man page, did you?:-)
You're in no position to call *anyone* else clueless.
But here is a hint: Nothing grows exponentially, so computing power would be the one exception.
Perhaps you meant to put "indefinitely" at the end of that sentence, or perhaps you simply don't know what "exponentially" means...either way, your statement is totally incorrect. There are of course huge numbers of things that grow exponentially, including computing power (just draw the graph I suggested and you will be able to see it!). You can find a list of examples at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
Of course it does! How the hell could it not?! A linear increase in computing power over the last century would have us using Pentiums in the 1920s or something. Seriously, show me a linear graph that plots computing power over the last 100 years...even anywhere near to approximately would do...
So, how exactly did a level of CFCs that are now a fraction of a percentage point of any modern-era level -- to the point where they're now banning fucking *asthma inhalers* -- somehow cause the largest "ozone hole" in recorded history?
Because it can take up to 2 years for a CFC molecule to make its way up to the ozone layer. And after that, it's not the CFC that directly breaks down the ozone, it's when the molecule itself is broken down by radiation that it then reacts, which can take decades. So banning CFCs won't instantly fix the problem; it takes time to see the results - perhaps till around 2030-40.
Because how hard is it to add 6 hours to EDT to come up with GMT?
Thanks for proving his point!:) Everyone knows their GMT offset, so why not give those times? (I suppose it should really be UTC since it's space stuff...)
Next, I group my tests, first, just numbers (I generally set my limits to 50 characters)
At, say, 100 trillion hashes per second, this stage to 50 chars takes way more than the lifetime of the universe to complete (like about 1 million trillion trillion years; I couldn't be bothered calculating it exactly).
How quick are those PS3s?
It takes a little more then that. A true Republic is ruled by philosopher-kings, See; Plato.
No, it doesn't. "The Republic" is simply a translation of his title. It's not a definition of a republic. The word comes from Latin, not Greek. A republic is simply a country where the ordinary people, or some of them, have a say in the rule of the country, rather than having hereditary ruler.
Needless to say; there is and have never been, a true Republic.
Sure there are. There are all sorts of republics currently in existence, from democratic republics, like the USA or Ireland, to single state republics like the PRC.
Getting rid of copyright won't prevent companies from using DRM and other technological measures to lock down the code.
The difference being, once the DRM is broken there will be legitimate non-DRM sources for the same software. It will make less and less sense for anyone to put out a DRMed version.
The only way to make sure that my code stays free for all is to use copyright to require others to keep it free.
Perhaps you're right. If you are, it's too high a price for me. I'd rather lose some code and gain additional freedom.
Incorrect. I'm clearly seeing 60 countries listed, which is not every country in the world, but is certainly representative enough to show that Norway is in fact NOT "working quite well".
My mistake. I guess it didn't load properly the first time I looked. However, the site itself says: "DEFINITION: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence." So I don't think it supports your contention that Norway isn't working quite well. It does better than Finland, Denmark, the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. That doesn't support the OPs argument that it's Norway's leniency that encourages crime.
It supports them by disproving your argument that they're doing quite well, when in fact they're nearly as bad as the US.
It's all relative. I didn't say they were perfect...
No it's not. That's not a list of every country in the world. It's a list of 20 compared and it covers general "crime". Have a look at something like murder rate instead.
Let's get the facts right before dismissing the OP.
You've just admitted that the USA does *worse* than Norway. How does that fact in any way support the OP?!
The concept of copyright in itself is not such a bad thing.
Well, I think it is.
Firstly it is the cornerstone on top of which the GPL and a large amount of open source software is built:
As pointed out; without copyright there would be little need to have the GPL.
Secondly, there are many of us who rely on producing content protected by copyright in order to put food in our mouths and pay the rent.
Not that many. Most writers I know don't make any money from copyright. They make money writing bits and pieces on demand, giving talks, etc. Only really popular writers actually make money from being able to stop someone else selling their material.
Similarly, most musicians I know make money from recording jingles, doing backing tracks, playing live, giving lessons, etc. Only really big and popular bands make (more) money from stopping someone else selling their materials.
Computer games are perhaps an exception to the general rule though
Without the concept of copyright you could buy a computer game, then sell it on as many times as you wanted without sharing any of the vast profits you made with the people who produced the product originally. Since you did not have the overheads of actually producing the game in the first place you could sell it far cheaper than the original authors and so more people would buy it from you than them.
How would they make "vast profits" if someone else could simply undercut *them*? You also ignore the first mover advantage and the advantage of being the licensed reseller, of having the game hard coded with *your* website to buy add-ons and updates, with the fact you have that nice printed manual, that you've arranged to get your copy of the game into stores, and the fact that no-one is going to bother selling copies of your game unless they're sure it's going to be a big seller!
Since we are not living in a pure Socialist world with no money we need some sort of way to ensure that people can produce content like books, games, music and films and still some sort of reward. What's more, they need to be sure they will get a reward if they produce something popular in order to have an incentive to do it and the means to produce more after the first once is published.
Well, firstly I think that the benefits of copyright are massively overhyped. But even if they weren't, I don't think that placing restrictions on the activities of everyone else is a good solution. Sharing information should be a *good* thing. Instead it's criminalised in order to make more money for products that are already successful (or no-one would bother copying them to start with). That can't be right...
That graph is misleading, as it looks like the pace of improvement is actually slowing (which is what confused the AC who replied to you). It would be better plotted as Watts per Dollar, which shows the trend clearly. Here's that same data presented that way.
I don't know what is working, but the all too lenient system here also isn't working very well.
But - your anecdotes aside - it clearly is working quite well. Norway has relatively low crime rates compared to other European countries (and much lower than the US). What other result would count as "working" for you?
It almost seems like you'd prefer to have higher crime rates, as long as it gave you the chance to show how "tough" you were being on criminals...
Solar power is completely bloody useless if you haven't got long days. Clear sunshine isn't so important. Guess when you tend to need electricity the most? On dark winter days. Guess when solar panels just plain don't work? Go on... there, I knew you could say it.
You can get solar panels fitted on the Isle of Lewis and they work fine. Most people in Scotland live a fair bit further south than that...
Here in Scotland we have one of the largest on-shore wind farms in Europe. It's spent roughly three-quarters of the year to date shut down
Really? Whitelee has been down for 9 months? I didn't hear it on the news and Google gives me nothing. Link?
We need to invest in modern nuclear plants.
Nuclear is dirty, expensive and leaves us reliant on digging crap out of the ground in third-world hell-holes only to spend more money later figuring out where to bury the shite. Why would anyone want it? We can supply massively more energy than we need in Scotland purely from renewables using existing tech.
Slashdot Mirror
It will break before you outgrow it. That's what the statistics predict anyway. HDDs tend to have a much longer MTBF than SSDs, so you may want to take extra care of those backups.
This is completely backwards. SSDs have a *much* longer MTBF than HDDs; up to 20 times longer. But I'm willing to stand corrected if you have some up-to-date data that says different. Do you?
I learned rather early on that "man" gave you a small manual to a command. But I could never figure out how to EXIT the manual ... there was a period where I had to reboot after looking up each reference. So typing "man man" should yield appropriate research --- only, the man page for man does not in fact tell you that you need to type "Q" to return to the command line.
You never tried typing "help" when you were viewing the man page, did you? :-)
It is not my job to enlighten the clueless.
You're in no position to call *anyone* else clueless.
But here is a hint: Nothing grows exponentially, so computing power would be the one exception.
Perhaps you meant to put "indefinitely" at the end of that sentence, or perhaps you simply don't know what "exponentially" means...either way, your statement is totally incorrect. There are of course huge numbers of things that grow exponentially, including computing power (just draw the graph I suggested and you will be able to see it!). You can find a list of examples at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
See, you learned something new today!
Computing power does not grow exponentially,
Of course it does! How the hell could it not?! A linear increase in computing power over the last century would have us using Pentiums in the 1920s or something. Seriously, show me a linear graph that plots computing power over the last 100 years...even anywhere near to approximately would do...
Venus stratosphere ranges between 385C and 75C.
You got a cite for those figures?
So, how exactly did a level of CFCs that are now a fraction of a percentage point of any modern-era level -- to the point where they're now banning fucking *asthma inhalers* -- somehow cause the largest "ozone hole" in recorded history?
Because it can take up to 2 years for a CFC molecule to make its way up to the ozone layer. And after that, it's not the CFC that directly breaks down the ozone, it's when the molecule itself is broken down by radiation that it then reacts, which can take decades. So banning CFCs won't instantly fix the problem; it takes time to see the results - perhaps till around 2030-40.
It is fast becoming a sounding board for fanboys and trolls who think and act a certain way, and the accepted news submissions reflect this.
bonch's Achievements
Submitted a Story That Was Posted
Congratulations! ;-)
A site that I read often and, eventually (though far too late to have a cool UID, damn it!)
At least you got your username. I nearly took "Seumas", but decided against it...
Because how hard is it to add 6 hours to EDT to come up with GMT?
Thanks for proving his point! :) Everyone knows their GMT offset, so why not give those times? (I suppose it should really be UTC since it's space stuff...)
That's at 18:00 GMT. I assume everyone on Slashdot knows their GMT offset.
I just checked it out at Project Gutenberg. There is not a single use of the word "deduct". "Deduce" is used several times.
At, say, 100 trillion hashes per second, this stage to 50 chars takes way more than the lifetime of the universe to complete (like about 1 million trillion trillion years; I couldn't be bothered calculating it exactly). How quick are those PS3s?
If you're interested in such things, you may wish to read through http://www.freelance-academy.org/plato-republic/On_title_of_Republic.pdf
It takes a little more then that. A true Republic is ruled by philosopher-kings, See; Plato.
No, it doesn't. "The Republic" is simply a translation of his title. It's not a definition of a republic. The word comes from Latin, not Greek. A republic is simply a country where the ordinary people, or some of them, have a say in the rule of the country, rather than having hereditary ruler.
Needless to say; there is and have never been, a true Republic.
Sure there are. There are all sorts of republics currently in existence, from democratic republics, like the USA or Ireland, to single state republics like the PRC.
No, just calling China a republic doesn't make it one. The fact that it doesn't have a monarch makes it one.
Getting rid of copyright won't prevent companies from using DRM and other technological measures to lock down the code.
The difference being, once the DRM is broken there will be legitimate non-DRM sources for the same software. It will make less and less sense for anyone to put out a DRMed version.
The only way to make sure that my code stays free for all is to use copyright to require others to keep it free.
Perhaps you're right. If you are, it's too high a price for me. I'd rather lose some code and gain additional freedom.
Incorrect. I'm clearly seeing 60 countries listed, which is not every country in the world, but is certainly representative enough to show that Norway is in fact NOT "working quite well".
My mistake. I guess it didn't load properly the first time I looked. However, the site itself says: "DEFINITION: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence." So I don't think it supports your contention that Norway isn't working quite well. It does better than Finland, Denmark, the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. That doesn't support the OPs argument that it's Norway's leniency that encourages crime.
It supports them by disproving your argument that they're doing quite well, when in fact they're nearly as bad as the US.
It's all relative. I didn't say they were perfect...
You don't understand the GPL.
Yes, I think I do. I've been following Free Software for...quite a few years now. ;-)
I don't want some big company taking my code, building on it and refusing to let me and others see the changes.
Why on earth would they want to do that, in a world without copyright?
Considering that Norway ranks #13 on the total crimes per capita list at: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita [nationmaster.com] your assessment that they're doing quite well is simply wrong.
No it's not. That's not a list of every country in the world. It's a list of 20 compared and it covers general "crime". Have a look at something like murder rate instead.
Let's get the facts right before dismissing the OP.
You've just admitted that the USA does *worse* than Norway. How does that fact in any way support the OP?!
The concept of copyright in itself is not such a bad thing.
Well, I think it is.
Firstly it is the cornerstone on top of which the GPL and a large amount of open source software is built:
As pointed out; without copyright there would be little need to have the GPL.
Secondly, there are many of us who rely on producing content protected by copyright in order to put food in our mouths and pay the rent.
Not that many. Most writers I know don't make any money from copyright. They make money writing bits and pieces on demand, giving talks, etc. Only really popular writers actually make money from being able to stop someone else selling their material. Similarly, most musicians I know make money from recording jingles, doing backing tracks, playing live, giving lessons, etc. Only really big and popular bands make (more) money from stopping someone else selling their materials. Computer games are perhaps an exception to the general rule though
Without the concept of copyright you could buy a computer game, then sell it on as many times as you wanted without sharing any of the vast profits you made with the people who produced the product originally. Since you did not have the overheads of actually producing the game in the first place you could sell it far cheaper than the original authors and so more people would buy it from you than them.
How would they make "vast profits" if someone else could simply undercut *them*? You also ignore the first mover advantage and the advantage of being the licensed reseller, of having the game hard coded with *your* website to buy add-ons and updates, with the fact you have that nice printed manual, that you've arranged to get your copy of the game into stores, and the fact that no-one is going to bother selling copies of your game unless they're sure it's going to be a big seller!
Since we are not living in a pure Socialist world with no money we need some sort of way to ensure that people can produce content like books, games, music and films and still some sort of reward. What's more, they need to be sure they will get a reward if they produce something popular in order to have an incentive to do it and the means to produce more after the first once is published.
Well, firstly I think that the benefits of copyright are massively overhyped. But even if they weren't, I don't think that placing restrictions on the activities of everyone else is a good solution. Sharing information should be a *good* thing. Instead it's criminalised in order to make more money for products that are already successful (or no-one would bother copying them to start with). That can't be right...
Take a look at this graph, from this article about solar price trends.
That graph is misleading, as it looks like the pace of improvement is actually slowing (which is what confused the AC who replied to you). It would be better plotted as Watts per Dollar, which shows the trend clearly. Here's that same data presented that way.
But - your anecdotes aside - it clearly is working quite well. Norway has relatively low crime rates compared to other European countries (and much lower than the US). What other result would count as "working" for you?
It almost seems like you'd prefer to have higher crime rates, as long as it gave you the chance to show how "tough" you were being on criminals...
You can get solar panels fitted on the Isle of Lewis and they work fine. Most people in Scotland live a fair bit further south than that...
Really? Whitelee has been down for 9 months? I didn't hear it on the news and Google gives me nothing. Link?
Nuclear is dirty, expensive and leaves us reliant on digging crap out of the ground in third-world hell-holes only to spend more money later figuring out where to bury the shite. Why would anyone want it? We can supply massively more energy than we need in Scotland purely from renewables using existing tech.
...except with an actual space rather than the entity...
I suspect mine was similar...
Python?