You *do* realize that Freenet is so slow on account of its design constraints wrt privacy and anonymity -- constraints that don't apply to this project -- right?
I hope that's true, but I don't see why you're so sure. There are many other good candidate reasons that Freenet is slow.
Dijjer uses a highly scalable distributed caching algorithm inspired by Freenet. This will allow it to deliver faster download speeds while placing less burden on the web server, and will be better able to handle sudden increases in demand for content.
I'd like to add that I heard blind people can go mad when you try to feed them visual stimuli through the eye nerves, probably because these brain parts have taken on other roles.
The occipital lobe (visual cortex) in congenitally blind people is used for other purposes. Dunno what the hell you mean by "go mad", but I also doubt that those implants would work for them like it would for someone who loses sight as an adult.
I'd therefore like to suggest that babies born blind are provided with artificial visual stimuli, so that this part of the brain learns to work and can later operate fully, when there is the technology to provide fully working artificial eyes.
Congenitally blind people use their occipital lobe for other purposes. Somehow I don't think we're anywhere near figuring out a better use for it. Your idea is colossally stupid.
What unnerves me more than anything is the simple fact that election officials are so adamantly against paper receipts. There is simply no rational explanation for not wanting them.
Because then you don't solve the problem with the 2000 election in Florida: Recounts & Doubt!
We almost did it this time. Next year, Diebold will autocorrect vote tallies so that there aren't statistical discrepancies, and it will be perfect. What happened in Florida in 2000 can never happen again!
P.S.
how else do you verify that a paperless voting system is working properly?
You don't. That's the point.
Re:So..Sir Mixalot was right after all.....
on
Humans Born to Run
·
· Score: 2, Funny
If they are intolerant of lifestyles such as those presented, they see the film as an indictment. If they are open-minded about how other people choose to live their lives, they see the film's presentation as sympathetic.
Aww. Lay off a little, maybe? They're being overly harsh to you, but there are myriad more acceptable reasons for them to do so. They're overprotective. Lord only knows why.
This reminds me of the Irreversible director saying that everyone who was offended by his movie was only offended because they identified with the rapist. You can presume to know how to make a film, but not necessarily to know your audience. At least not so well.
And Iduno. I haven't seen the movies. Maybe he's right.
The sad truth is that buses are not cost-effective in most places and trains are useless without buses, so basically any non-major city will have a useless public transportation system, if any.
That might be true. Cities are better for the environment. C'mon, move up here to SF?
So we spent $1000 and less than 30 minutes a year for a product that has worked flawlessly.
Barracuda still doesn't strike me as the right way. I'm not even sure if it'd be better than our ancient (but serviceable) TrendMicro solution. What is "flawlessly"? Do your users not receive spam? Do innocent bystanders get spammed with bounce messages? Right now, our users don't get viruses via email, but they get a billion virus messages that have been stripped of their payload. That's lame, and there's no good way to turn it off (according to the admins).
Is there a decent way to implement DomainKeys and SPF (and thus also SASL) in front of or on Exchange for 500 users? The most valuable solution would be one that prevents spam being sent to the CEO forged "from" the VPs, which happens.
"And so we have special technology which just filters (spam)."
And what do you call this special technology? What a brilliant new development. Please, Mr. Balmer, you must share this invention with the rest of us. Or, perhaps, is it "sendmail" on "linux" running "spamassassin"? Ah, yes, perhaps so.
Maybe the admins at my work are just braindead, but apparently everyone's so nervous about Exchange 2000 that they won't run any other mail related software on the Exchange server. So if we want to filter email with other software, it goes on a separate box, and they all get chained together. Which means that if they ever want to find out where an email came from, they have to go through three different sets of logs. This is all black magic to me. I code VBA for a living.
Is there a right way on Exchange 2000? We'd do all kinds of better spam filtration if implementation was completely better.
No, the point is that you seem to think his arguement is demolished by the simple fact that Nintendo is still making money off Super Mario 3.
If you mean his argument that Nintendo isn't making money off Super Mario 3, then yes, that is demolished by the fact that Nintendo is still making money off of Super Mario 3. I haven't said a single thing about whether it's ok to copy their shit. I happen to think it's fine, but it's not because Nintendo isn't making money off it, as original poster stated.
Because if they weren't unjustly famous, they'd be two bit whores. I don't see how that isn't clear. I don't see how saying "they'd be two bit whores" isn't a judgment on someone's moral being. Are you playing dumb?
I can't even imagine the logic that conflates "acceptable" entertainment with commentary on their moral being.
That's ok, because it's completely irrelevant to our discussion.
Where I took offense was that you used that fact to label him misogynistic (ie. you said he hates women).
But I didn't do that. I said that he "worked some misogyny into" his post. I have myself, many times, said something that was misogynistic. I am not a misogynist. Hopefully, neither is whatsisname. But I maintain that his comment was misogynistic. There is still room in that statement for him to be a good person, and to love women.
It's the hyper-PC attitude that I hate. Anything said which is remotely stereotypical gets labelled as "hate speech." I see your attitude as an extension of this.
Why? What attitude. I'm being completely reasonable. My original comment was supposed to be funny, and I still think that it was. So please, consider why my comment sent you into a tizzy.
It is implying he was making a moral judgement on their behavior. I don't see that.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Rather, he was saying HE doesn't value their behavior. That is VERY different than saying their behvior is "bad" or to be condemned.
He says neither of these two things. He says that they're not "True Musicians", and "Since they only care about entertaining and not making music, they'd probably be just another coked-out stripper on the LA Strip, telling you how they're going to make it big and be somebody between lapdances and serving you a $10 cocktail." He doesn't say whether he values their behavior, nor that it's bad, nor that it's to be condemned. He is, however, in my opinion, using this imaginary example as proof that they are bad people. I could be wrong, but I don't think I'm jumping wildly to conclusions either.
I could view his statement as much as a lamentation of what society currently values as it is a moral condemnation of their behavior.
If you play telephone long enough, you could view it as he started the goddamn Chicago fire. Now that don't necessarily make it fucking so.
You seem to be saying a person's public actions should be ignored or are ignoring the fact that these people (esp. the Simpsons, but also Britney) are celebrities whose every public action for the last 5-10 years has been closely tracked.
Are you telling me that it follows logically that Ashley Simpson & Britney Spears would be coked out strippers if they didn't make it big?
You do know that sex plays a BIG part of her act, right?
That is obviously the case. Does this mean that Britney Spears have otherwise wound up a coked out stripper on the LA strip?
You are using pretty loaded language. "Approve of" isn't really appropriate. It is implying he was making a moral judgement on their behavior.
I didn't intend to use loaded language. I was trying to say as simply as possible that he is making a judgment on their behavior. They are doing something that he thinks is bad, in comparison to Wilco whom is not. That is obviously what he is trying to say. Your original post acted as if he's not passing judgment, when he is. He is commenting on how much better Wilco is than Britney, and why. There are other reasons and arguments he could have picked. Some of them are even valid.
It won't do "file://" links to windows URIs in the same exact way as IE. I don't think IE necessarily does it right, but that means that our idiotically designed intranet website won't work right. Neither will our "This page is blocked" web page (although it will still block whatever page).
That's not what stopped me from using Firefox at work, though. Google Desktop.
This is preposterous. You are trying to say that the only reason that a person wouldn't say this about a boy band is misogyny (or more correctly, negative stereotypes of women). Nope.
I wasn't only trying to say that. I was saying that "you could say this about boy bands too" is not a reason for it not to be misogyny. There are a myriad reasons why the original poster would not (and did not) say that. I do think that misogyny is one of them.
Our only example of his opinion of women is what he thinks of these two female performers. He doesn't seem to like them. His example of how low he thinks they'd sink is to show how he thinks their morals are bad in comparison to Wilco. The only evidence I think he has for his conclusion (that they would become strippers) is that they are women.
Anyway, I interpreted his statement as saying that these women's only marketable feature is their beauty.
That's fine. It's not what he said.
And I don't think he was saying that made them bad people,
It's pretty clear that he was comparing and contrasting them with Wilco, whom he approves of, and these female performers whom he does not approve of. It was completely clear that he was using this as example of what made them bad people. What makes you say otherwise?
You needn't actually "base your design on someone else's patented product" in order to infringe on a patent. Nor do you need to be seeking a patent. You need merely to use without license a patented device or method, even if you invented it independently.
But that's not what I said, and that's not what I meant, either. I know perfectly well that you could follow my advice and still infringe on an existing patent. I was instructing that there is no patent-related due diligence to be performed. That is also true.
Slashdot Mirror
Now I know what I want for Christmas, just not a snowball's chance in hell of getting one!
A snowball would fare worse in a Scan White Cobra.
You *do* realize that Freenet is so slow on account of its design constraints wrt privacy and anonymity -- constraints that don't apply to this project -- right?
I hope that's true, but I don't see why you're so sure. There are many other good candidate reasons that Freenet is slow.
Dijjer uses a highly scalable distributed caching algorithm inspired by Freenet. This will allow it to deliver faster download speeds while placing less burden on the web server, and will be better able to handle sudden increases in demand for content.
Sweet! Maybe it will be as fast as Freenet!
I'd like to add that I heard blind people can go mad when you try to feed them visual stimuli through the eye nerves, probably because these brain parts have taken on other roles.
The occipital lobe (visual cortex) in congenitally blind people is used for other purposes. Dunno what the hell you mean by "go mad", but I also doubt that those implants would work for them like it would for someone who loses sight as an adult.
I'd therefore like to suggest that babies born blind are provided with artificial visual stimuli, so that this part of the brain learns to work and can later operate fully, when there is the technology to provide fully working artificial eyes.
Congenitally blind people use their occipital lobe for other purposes. Somehow I don't think we're anywhere near figuring out a better use for it. Your idea is colossally stupid.
"Its not known for sure why, but the thinking is that neurons just get worn out as the mind deals with the pain."
Right. Either that or being stupid hurts.
We almost did it this time. Next year, Diebold will autocorrect vote tallies so that there aren't statistical discrepancies, and it will be perfect. What happened in Florida in 2000 can never happen again!
P.S.You don't. That's the point.
That's a tempting sig replacement.
--
Big buttocks are also important.
It's amazing to me how some people see the films so completely differently.
:)
It's certainly evidence that you got their attention, and without making an obvious, one-sided statement. As I'm sure you realize
If they are intolerant of lifestyles such as those presented, they see the film as an indictment. If they are open-minded about how other people choose to live their lives, they see the film's presentation as sympathetic.
Aww. Lay off a little, maybe? They're being overly harsh to you, but there are myriad more acceptable reasons for them to do so. They're overprotective. Lord only knows why.
This reminds me of the Irreversible director saying that everyone who was offended by his movie was only offended because they identified with the rapist. You can presume to know how to make a film, but not necessarily to know your audience. At least not so well.
And Iduno. I haven't seen the movies. Maybe he's right.
"a very capable OS that unfortunately doesn't get a lot of press."
It gets press among people that care about real time operating systems... dunno what kind of press you're hoping for.
The sad truth is that buses are not cost-effective in most places and trains are useless without buses, so basically any non-major city will have a useless public transportation system, if any.
That might be true. Cities are better for the environment. C'mon, move up here to SF?
So we spent $1000 and less than 30 minutes a year for a product that has worked flawlessly.
Barracuda still doesn't strike me as the right way. I'm not even sure if it'd be better than our ancient (but serviceable) TrendMicro solution. What is "flawlessly"? Do your users not receive spam? Do innocent bystanders get spammed with bounce messages? Right now, our users don't get viruses via email, but they get a billion virus messages that have been stripped of their payload. That's lame, and there's no good way to turn it off (according to the admins).
Is there a decent way to implement DomainKeys and SPF (and thus also SASL) in front of or on Exchange for 500 users? The most valuable solution would be one that prevents spam being sent to the CEO forged "from" the VPs, which happens.
"And so we have special technology which just filters (spam)."
And what do you call this special technology? What a brilliant new development. Please, Mr. Balmer, you must share this invention with the rest of us. Or, perhaps, is it "sendmail" on "linux" running "spamassassin"? Ah, yes, perhaps so.
Maybe the admins at my work are just braindead, but apparently everyone's so nervous about Exchange 2000 that they won't run any other mail related software on the Exchange server. So if we want to filter email with other software, it goes on a separate box, and they all get chained together. Which means that if they ever want to find out where an email came from, they have to go through three different sets of logs. This is all black magic to me. I code VBA for a living.
Is there a right way on Exchange 2000? We'd do all kinds of better spam filtration if implementation was completely better.
No, the point is that you seem to think his arguement is demolished by the simple fact that Nintendo is still making money off Super Mario 3.
If you mean his argument that Nintendo isn't making money off Super Mario 3, then yes, that is demolished by the fact that Nintendo is still making money off of Super Mario 3. I haven't said a single thing about whether it's ok to copy their shit. I happen to think it's fine, but it's not because Nintendo isn't making money off it, as original poster stated.
Why are they "bad" people?
Because if they weren't unjustly famous, they'd be two bit whores. I don't see how that isn't clear. I don't see how saying "they'd be two bit whores" isn't a judgment on someone's moral being. Are you playing dumb?
I can't even imagine the logic that conflates "acceptable" entertainment with commentary on their moral being.
That's ok, because it's completely irrelevant to our discussion.
It was funny and it was true.
"Memory can change the shape of a room; it can change the color of a car."
Eyewitness testimony should be backed up with evidence when you're trying to send someone to prison.
Where I took offense was that you used that fact to label him misogynistic (ie. you said he hates women).
But I didn't do that. I said that he "worked some misogyny into" his post. I have myself, many times, said something that was misogynistic. I am not a misogynist. Hopefully, neither is whatsisname. But I maintain that his comment was misogynistic. There is still room in that statement for him to be a good person, and to love women.
It's the hyper-PC attitude that I hate. Anything said which is remotely stereotypical gets labelled as "hate speech." I see your attitude as an extension of this.
Why? What attitude. I'm being completely reasonable. My original comment was supposed to be funny, and I still think that it was. So please, consider why my comment sent you into a tizzy.
You seem to be saying a person's public actions should be ignored or are ignoring the fact that these people (esp. the Simpsons, but also Britney) are celebrities whose every public action for the last 5-10 years has been closely tracked.
Are you telling me that it follows logically that Ashley Simpson & Britney Spears would be coked out strippers if they didn't make it big?
You do know that sex plays a BIG part of her act, right?
That is obviously the case. Does this mean that Britney Spears have otherwise wound up a coked out stripper on the LA strip?
You are using pretty loaded language. "Approve of" isn't really appropriate. It is implying he was making a moral judgement on their behavior.
I didn't intend to use loaded language. I was trying to say as simply as possible that he is making a judgment on their behavior. They are doing something that he thinks is bad, in comparison to Wilco whom is not. That is obviously what he is trying to say. Your original post acted as if he's not passing judgment, when he is. He is commenting on how much better Wilco is than Britney, and why. There are other reasons and arguments he could have picked. Some of them are even valid.
You can search your web history.
It won't do "file://" links to windows URIs in the same exact way as IE. I don't think IE necessarily does it right, but that means that our idiotically designed intranet website won't work right. Neither will our "This page is blocked" web page (although it will still block whatever page).
That's not what stopped me from using Firefox at work, though. Google Desktop.
This is preposterous. You are trying to say that the only reason that a person wouldn't say this about a boy band is misogyny (or more correctly, negative stereotypes of women). Nope.
I wasn't only trying to say that. I was saying that "you could say this about boy bands too" is not a reason for it not to be misogyny. There are a myriad reasons why the original poster would not (and did not) say that. I do think that misogyny is one of them.
But that he HATES women? That's a stretch.
Our only example of his opinion of women is what he thinks of these two female performers. He doesn't seem to like them. His example of how low he thinks they'd sink is to show how he thinks their morals are bad in comparison to Wilco. The only evidence I think he has for his conclusion (that they would become strippers) is that they are women.
Anyway, I interpreted his statement as saying that these women's only marketable feature is their beauty.
That's fine. It's not what he said.
And I don't think he was saying that made them bad people,
It's pretty clear that he was comparing and contrasting them with Wilco, whom he approves of, and these female performers whom he does not approve of. It was completely clear that he was using this as example of what made them bad people. What makes you say otherwise?
You needn't actually "base your design on someone else's patented product" in order to infringe on a patent. Nor do you need to be seeking a patent. You need merely to use without license a patented device or method, even if you invented it independently.
But that's not what I said, and that's not what I meant, either. I know perfectly well that you could follow my advice and still infringe on an existing patent. I was instructing that there is no patent-related due diligence to be performed. That is also true.