A few university set-ups in Germany tried this, (e.g. Hamburg), albeit probably with far simpler specifications as it was some years ago. They had surprisingly frequent problems with birds; birds perching on the towers, birds flying between the source/sink, uzw. Packet loss got enough at one point to contact a local falconer to see if his bird of prey could scare them away. It turned out that the local bakery was too much of a draw. There was whimsical talk of adding a TCP/IP error for bakery janitorial events. I believe they eventually just went with fiber pulled through the sewers..ja-da
Not to get into any way off-topic bible matter here, but even that passage (Romans 1:26:28) is subject to translation discussion. some say the Septuagint didn't know all the 'special' Hebrew/Aramaic words. And then the King James translators from the Latin/Greek applied their own ideas of sexual perversions. that is, it's worth going to a website that has many translations and seeing just how many of them include passages like "burned in lust one toward another" and those which somehow don't find that in the original
..and it's not even clear to what Paul (the Apostle) is referring to in/around Galatians 5:19-25. He's just telling them to knock it off all that sexual immorality and alcohol consumption. now... knowing the Galatians as well as we do [wink], you can infer some of what was going on, but it's certainly fodder for *endless* biblical debate (as if anymore was needed)
Getting back to Tim Cook's "letter to..." someones and the quote therein: "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me". ok, probably unfortunate to drag a deity in this; but does this imply that being gifted with non-gayness isn't a gift? i'll leave the sophistry to others.
...don't blame the victim (which is generally a good policy) because their benefit/risk estimation wasn't erroneous? I don't want to blame Jennifer Lawrence (as she seems to want to blame all those cursed with natural interests) but that she would've normally seen a benefit to her actions doesn't seem to directly address blame in any sense. Perhaps this ethical argument requires a simpler "ipso facto" tacked on the end for us stupid folks which are missing the connection between benefit and blame.
So yer say'n the ripper perferred prostitutes who were formerly choir castrati...i like the way you think! (that's much more cunning that your theory, Watson, that the pimp got in the way of the ripper's blade)
it's probably after the link somewhere, but one useful explanation in this summary would be why DNA analysis of the blood:
employed DNA analysis on the blood-soaked shawl of one of the Ripper's victims, and has declared it in a new book an unambiguous match with
wouldn't just reveal the identity of the victim. ("y'see, it was a man's- blood!" "y'see the ripper had cut 'imself shav'n that morning" "y'see the worker girl she had 'er own knife a'course")
let's imagine that a majority of Slashdot readers is in favor of net neutrality -and- typically doesn't want to click to grind through to get the gist.
"House members plan to try and add an amendment to H.R. 5016 the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act to block funding of FCC network neutrality rules. so since the "FCC's (current proposed) network neutrality rules" suck, then we -want- this plan to add an amendment to succeed? or... since "Public Knowledge is asking citizens to tell Congress to stop meddling with net neutrality." we should instead want congress to leave the FCC alone (and its current commissioner, Tom Wheeler, fresh from the telecom industry)
please explain, in simple terms, on which side we "news for nerds" ought to feel about this news item!
They do in Seattle and SF and Chicago at least (often, but not always Sikhs). they started as drivers and now own a medallion. often they are paying off loans for it. and along comes Bezos backed Uber...
the cities demanded that they buy them to do business. now some of these cities are negotiating with Uber. how does your trusting immigrant business owner feel now?
Where's the posting which shows that Uber, which is bank-rolled against the small time (typically immigrant) taxi owner, is now coupled with ALEC ("the notoriously evil American Legislative Exchange Council" aka Koch brothers)?:
http://slog.thestranger.com/sl...
Establish a side-line where you manufacture credible 'DMOA' legalistic take-down threats to -all- users of a hosting service (for you know every "thief doth fear each bush an officer") and, of course, copy the host's office themselves. Hide ye in the vast underbrush of your own making; because, really that's all the DMCA is, is a bully for hire.
...is not a worthy goal. Robert McMillen is essentially saying "the market is historically uncompetitive" (and thus broken) "but that's not the point" (i always love it when people tell me that their point is the point) "you should be able to receive [only] that broken product at a fair price". If he actually believes and understands what he's saying then he's promoting a system of government supported monopolistic and anti-capitalistic cronyism. (i'll leave it to Godwin to apply a label to that system)
man, where did that come from? cuz my horse could hardly be lower.
(my offhand remark even included the notion that "Language Changes". which couldn't be more true)
...making something functional with less than optimum resources (cf MacGyver, bodge-up, gerryrig, uzw). which preceded the notion of "one who gains unauthorized access to computers" by oh... perhaps a whole !@#n seven years.
here's another current worthy tome which supports that earlier notion, and thus causes undue confusion:
Hacker's Delight, which gets down to the hardware bits with some amazing cycle optimizations
yep. along with all the rest of the BLAS, EISPACK, CERNLAB, MINPACK, SOFA, ATLAS, EIGEN,... and even the comparatively more recent Bioinformatics cores.. BLAST, BLAT,...
I really don't understand the "scientific computing.. almost all new software is written in C++" comes from. It's all become Python (and Perl before that) calling old libraries at the scientific meetings i've attended. (but i suppose YMMV)
mod the above up please (i'm fresh out of mod points), because that's it in a nutshell. Fortran was designed for science/engineering work.
And here's something that a majority of computer-science mavins never seem to grasp. In academia, at least, the use of a program is often relatively ad-hoc, and for the life of the publication. they need to have lots of numerical stuff down by easily references libraries, then handed off to their (poor) dost-docs/grad-students to study for their own one-off programming purposes. That is, the next vital program will have little to do with the previous except for those same well referenced peer-reviewed linked-to numerical libraries. Does that sound like a perfect use (model) of Clojure or Haskell to you? (yes yes you in the back, i know you brush your teeth with monads, but you're the rare case). Haskell and friends force you to think a lot up front for gains at the rear-end, but with much of academic programming there's no rear-end.
to interact with an imperfect world one needs monads. to have monads is to compromise functional programming. ipso-facto-quod-splut: i always did rarther fancy Fortran. (hsst: don't tell anyone, but Forth is the -only- way to go, (and by 'go' i don't mean "Go" (or "Dart")))
this is what it does:
It provides the necessary software to support a private, possibly semi-secure, social network. Think: Facebook, but small and secret, presumably to protect your membership from an oppressive large authority.
(this post is a traditional trick to get someone who actually can answer this sensible question to become so enraged by this incorrect reply that their activation energy is achieved and we get a good answer. so take what i've written up there as false bait. (this works particularly well when one wants a clear definition to obscure technical terms. just get yourself on a Haskell board, and write: "monads? simple! they're factory objects that provide closures for a formal lambda expression" then watch the horror and outrage and eventually you get the correct answer from the former lurker class))
If your boss has any basic science education try to sell them on the "a monoculture is at more risk to attack" approach. that's not entirely false, but mostly it sounds good and pointy-hairs tend to swallow it.
Then choose some version of Ubuntu or Red-Hat, but be ready to suffer all the horrors of dealing with the document, spreadsheet, calendar exchange formats. Those issues, more than any other, will spell failure. (just one middle-level moron who can't open your LibreOffice 'power-point' stack and you're toast) So, far more important than distribution is to be ready (practice!) your corporate compatibility two-step. (once saved my bacon by showing that my 'beamer' stack made everyone's powerpoint stack look like crap)
Beware of the vindictive IT staff who don't want to learn one more thing beyond their 'microsoft certification' merit badge. They will make your life a living hell. good luck!
I'd like to know if there's any real hope for technocrat.net..? it re-started, i've followed it fairly frequently, and now it already seems rather moribund
i think if you were to do this i'd visit it often in-lieu of that slashdot seems hell-bent upon doing to itself. consider yourself encouraged by the vast faceless horde.
that reply is of the "but Einstein believed in God" sort. whereas i stated that religion is based on faith and faith is inconsistent with science. i did not state that someone who currently is willing to believe that a god is possible (even probable) cannot do good science; just that they cannot hold this belief in the face of contrary evidence, which is to say faith. faith accepts no evidence and cannot be placed aside for evidence. so "real science" (as you introduce the term) is entirely inconsistent with "real faith" (as you introduce the term). they are philosophically orthogonal concepts.
"testimonies"?...is that some specialized mormon terminology like being 'sealed' rather than married?
i've read endless screeds about how one can make religion and science happily co-exist. but in the final analysis, it can't happen; at least not with standard faith-based religions. science essentially demands that nothing can be taken on faith; and religion essentially demands that anything important (the root of one's philosophical tree, if you will) must be taken on faith. if you're a faithful you cannot be a clear-minded scientist. i know this will be tediously countered, but faith is anti-science, and faith is the basis of religion.
Slashdot Mirror
A few university set-ups in Germany tried this, (e.g. Hamburg), albeit probably with far simpler specifications as it was some years ago. They had surprisingly frequent problems with birds; birds perching on the towers, birds flying between the source/sink, uzw. Packet loss got enough at one point to contact a local falconer to see if his bird of prey could scare them away. It turned out that the local bakery was too much of a draw. There was whimsical talk of adding a TCP/IP error for bakery janitorial events. I believe they eventually just went with fiber pulled through the sewers ..ja-da
...plus "e10" still doesn't play well with copy/paste nor gmail compose window editing. ah well, i admire their dogged efforts.
Not to get into any way off-topic bible matter here, but even that passage (Romans 1:26:28) is subject to translation discussion. some say the Septuagint didn't know all the 'special' Hebrew/Aramaic words. And then the King James translators from the Latin/Greek applied their own ideas of sexual perversions. that is, it's worth going to a website that has many translations and seeing just how many of them include passages like "burned in lust one toward another" and those which somehow don't find that in the original
for example: God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural ...so what exactly "unnatural"? many folks think the know what that means, but there's a lot of years in between.
Getting back to Tim Cook's "letter to..." someones and the quote therein: "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me". ok, probably unfortunate to drag a deity in this; but does this imply that being gifted with non-gayness isn't a gift? i'll leave the sophistry to others.
...don't blame the victim (which is generally a good policy) because their benefit/risk estimation wasn't erroneous? I don't want to blame Jennifer Lawrence (as she seems to want to blame all those cursed with natural interests) but that she would've normally seen a benefit to her actions doesn't seem to directly address blame in any sense. Perhaps this ethical argument requires a simpler "ipso facto" tacked on the end for us stupid folks which are missing the connection between benefit and blame.
So yer say'n the ripper perferred prostitutes who were formerly choir castrati ...i like the way you think! (that's much more cunning that your theory, Watson, that the pimp got in the way of the ripper's blade)
And, of course, it's inconceiveable that there were cross-dressing prostitutes during that period..?
wouldn't just reveal the identity of the victim. ("y'see, it was a man's- blood!" "y'see the ripper had cut 'imself shav'n that morning" "y'see the worker girl she had 'er own knife a'course")
let's imagine that a majority of Slashdot readers is in favor of net neutrality -and- typically doesn't want to click to grind through to get the gist.
"House members plan to try and add an amendment to H.R. 5016 the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act to block funding of FCC network neutrality rules. so since the "FCC's (current proposed) network neutrality rules" suck, then we -want- this plan to add an amendment to succeed? or... since "Public Knowledge is asking citizens to tell Congress to stop meddling with net neutrality." we should instead want congress to leave the FCC alone (and its current commissioner, Tom Wheeler, fresh from the telecom industry)
please explain, in simple terms, on which side we "news for nerds" ought to feel about this news item!
They do in Seattle and SF and Chicago at least (often, but not always Sikhs). they started as drivers and now own a medallion. often they are paying off loans for it. and along comes Bezos backed Uber...
the cities demanded that they buy them to do business. now some of these cities are negotiating with Uber. how does your trusting immigrant business owner feel now?
Where's the posting which shows that Uber, which is bank-rolled against the small time (typically immigrant) taxi owner, is now coupled with ALEC ("the notoriously evil American Legislative Exchange Council" aka Koch brothers)?: http://slog.thestranger.com/sl...
Establish a side-line where you manufacture credible 'DMOA' legalistic take-down threats to -all- users of a hosting service (for you know every "thief doth fear each bush an officer") and, of course, copy the host's office themselves. Hide ye in the vast underbrush of your own making; because, really that's all the DMCA is, is a bully for hire.
...is not a worthy goal. Robert McMillen is essentially saying "the market is historically uncompetitive" (and thus broken) "but that's not the point" (i always love it when people tell me that their point is the point) "you should be able to receive [only] that broken product at a fair price". If he actually believes and understands what he's saying then he's promoting a system of government supported monopolistic and anti-capitalistic cronyism. (i'll leave it to Godwin to apply a label to that system)
man, where did that come from? cuz my horse could hardly be lower. (my offhand remark even included the notion that "Language Changes". which couldn't be more true)
...making something functional with less than optimum resources (cf MacGyver, bodge-up, gerryrig, uzw). which preceded the notion of "one who gains unauthorized access to computers" by oh... perhaps a whole !@#n seven years.
here's another current worthy tome which supports that earlier notion, and thus causes undue confusion: Hacker's Delight, which gets down to the hardware bits with some amazing cycle optimizations
yep. along with all the rest of the BLAS, EISPACK, CERNLAB, MINPACK, SOFA, ATLAS, EIGEN, ... and even the comparatively more recent Bioinformatics cores.. BLAST, BLAT, ...
I really don't understand the "scientific computing .. almost all new software is written in C++" comes from. It's all become Python (and Perl before that) calling old libraries at the scientific meetings i've attended. (but i suppose YMMV)
mod the above up please (i'm fresh out of mod points), because that's it in a nutshell. Fortran was designed for science/engineering work. And here's something that a majority of computer-science mavins never seem to grasp. In academia, at least, the use of a program is often relatively ad-hoc, and for the life of the publication. they need to have lots of numerical stuff down by easily references libraries, then handed off to their (poor) dost-docs/grad-students to study for their own one-off programming purposes. That is, the next vital program will have little to do with the previous except for those same well referenced peer-reviewed linked-to numerical libraries. Does that sound like a perfect use (model) of Clojure or Haskell to you? (yes yes you in the back, i know you brush your teeth with monads, but you're the rare case). Haskell and friends force you to think a lot up front for gains at the rear-end, but with much of academic programming there's no rear-end.
to interact with an imperfect world one needs monads. to have monads is to compromise functional programming. ipso-facto-quod-splut: i always did rarther fancy Fortran. (hsst: don't tell anyone, but Forth is the -only- way to go, (and by 'go' i don't mean "Go" (or "Dart")))
this is what it does: It provides the necessary software to support a private, possibly semi-secure, social network. Think: Facebook, but small and secret, presumably to protect your membership from an oppressive large authority.
(this post is a traditional trick to get someone who actually can answer this sensible question to become so enraged by this incorrect reply that their activation energy is achieved and we get a good answer. so take what i've written up there as false bait. (this works particularly well when one wants a clear definition to obscure technical terms. just get yourself on a Haskell board, and write: "monads? simple! they're factory objects that provide closures for a formal lambda expression" then watch the horror and outrage and eventually you get the correct answer from the former lurker class))
i don't understand why that's a "catch". these dark days of oligarchy, this may be the main way we get any honest political effort.
If your boss has any basic science education try to sell them on the "a monoculture is at more risk to attack" approach. that's not entirely false, but mostly it sounds good and pointy-hairs tend to swallow it.
Then choose some version of Ubuntu or Red-Hat, but be ready to suffer all the horrors of dealing with the document, spreadsheet, calendar exchange formats. Those issues, more than any other, will spell failure. (just one middle-level moron who can't open your LibreOffice 'power-point' stack and you're toast) So, far more important than distribution is to be ready (practice!) your corporate compatibility two-step. (once saved my bacon by showing that my 'beamer' stack made everyone's powerpoint stack look like crap)
Beware of the vindictive IT staff who don't want to learn one more thing beyond their 'microsoft certification' merit badge. They will make your life a living hell. good luck!
I'd like to know if there's any real hope for technocrat.net ..? it re-started, i've followed it fairly frequently, and now it already seems rather moribund
i think if you were to do this i'd visit it often in-lieu of that slashdot seems hell-bent upon doing to itself. consider yourself encouraged by the vast faceless horde.
that reply is of the "but Einstein believed in God" sort. whereas i stated that religion is based on faith and faith is inconsistent with science. i did not state that someone who currently is willing to believe that a god is possible (even probable) cannot do good science; just that they cannot hold this belief in the face of contrary evidence, which is to say faith. faith accepts no evidence and cannot be placed aside for evidence. so "real science" (as you introduce the term) is entirely inconsistent with "real faith" (as you introduce the term). they are philosophically orthogonal concepts.
"testimonies"? ...is that some specialized mormon terminology like being 'sealed' rather than married?
i've read endless screeds about how one can make religion and science happily co-exist. but in the final analysis, it can't happen; at least not with standard faith-based religions. science essentially demands that nothing can be taken on faith; and religion essentially demands that anything important (the root of one's philosophical tree, if you will) must be taken on faith. if you're a faithful you cannot be a clear-minded scientist. i know this will be tediously countered, but faith is anti-science, and faith is the basis of religion.