I haven't upgraded my Ubuntu 11.04 to 11.10 because I like my GNOME Desktop the way it's been, not whatever this new thing is. But I don't want to miss the rest of the upgrades. Is there a way to keep the old style Desktop, but complete the rest of the upgrade?
And what about on my old machines that run Intel motherboard integrated graphics (82854G/GL), that often break with Ubuntu upgrades for at least a few weeks until xorg-intel patches are released? No, I don't want to buy new machines that otherwise do their job exactly the way they should, especially not to suit a "$free" OS.
How did you know that the attack was "100% landed"?
Wait - if you think that the news has put together a coherent sentence since the planes started crashing, don't answer that. Especially if you think the news has had a sentence, coherent or not, before the government has given it to say.
In 2010 Nielsen said that only 9% of American households received only terrestrial broadcast TV (ie. not cable or satellite). That number might have increased as the recession has made dropping paid services in favor of free (plus a possible digital converter/antenna) terrestrial broadcasts, but not much.
However, I would expect that a much larger proportion of that tenth of American households is in reach of an alertable emergency, like flood or tornado. More who don't work, so are isolated at home, need it. More children on average in those households, so more Americans. So I wouldn't be surprised if over 25-30% of Americans who needs these alerts can get them only over broadcast TV. I also expect they watch more TV on average than Americans overall, especially without the Internet.
And because people in that condition have a higher chance of being stupid losers, who watch TV all day in their trailer park surrounded by more children than they can afford to feed or relocate from an emergency. But those people still need the public to warn them of emergencies.
Yes, and in an emergency that control is necessary. Especially if the media outlet wouldn't voluntarily cooperate. The media resistance is the coup; the government is already the government.
If the emergency didn't warrant the government control, the media outlets could and would immediately sue the government. If the legal system were changed by the emergency response, the media outlets would continue to resist in ways that would be more powerful that the government, unless the people went along with the government.
But all this is moot. For a decade the government has been operating without regard to law or our rights, under cover of the "Global War on Terror" or whatever they call it this year. The real story is that the media outlets covering 99%+ of the audience are part of the "coup" that daily damages our rights, and robs and kills us with our rights abandoned.
Did you do anything about it while Bush/Cheney set it up and screwed us for 7 years with it?
So if they didn't switch to all digital, and so couldn't broadcast on any TV stations since the stations are now all digital, you couldn't receive it from any station near or far, you would care?
Because your Bush Derangement Syndrome makes you deny anything is Bush's fault, regardless of even relevance. You Republicans got it the worst. Which is how you gave us Bush twice.
On September 11, 2001, the Emergency Alert System (that replaced the Emergency Broadcast System in 1998) did not alert anything. NYC and DC were under multiple attack by planes that immediately crippled the country, surging panic throughout the nation and the world, and driving the USA down the path of ruinous war. But there were no announcements, no sirens, no alerts. Emergency, but no alerts. Precisely the kind of emergency the system was sold to the public to address. After decades, finally needed, useless.
The official explanation is so much media coverage that it wasn't needed. As if any event requiring the system to work is going to go uncovered by the commercial media. That means the policy is for the system never to actually be used.
All those years of "testing" the system, all the money spent, all the alternate preparations ignored in favor of that one - all a total waste.
The weirdest thing is that it took years before I even heard someone mention that it didn't work. A forgettable comedian in about 2004-2005 had about 45 seconds about it
Now they'll spend a load of money on something else. It might even work. But since nobody even noticed, there'll be no reason for this new one to work. Except for those annoying tests that interrupt us. And leave us expecting we've built something necessary in an emergency, when we've just wasted more money on military contractors who delivered nothing.
But it looks like (especially in the last several years) more "Perl call graph" work focuses on lexically parsing the Perl source. Which to me seems a great waste of this fascinating facility. Even though the graph is of a stack machine, not dataflow exactly, it seems like an interesting facility to target with a graph editor.
I don't see where JavaSpaces can be programmed with graphs, with conversion back and forth between text and graphs.
I don't see that there's a Lucid compiler to JVM bytecode.
Perl used to have a feature where the runtime would dump the object graph it compiles the source text into, which might have been a platform for converting a graph dump to source text. But though there are some ways to compile Perl to JVM bytecode, I don't see any evidence that Perl even supports the graph dump anymore.
There's something wrong with you if your Java executable is slower than C++. You're a bad Java programmer, or you're using a 10 year old machine (or a 15 year old JVM), or you just have your current environment badly configured.
Java is also fairly terse and elegant. As this new language shows by laboring mightily to replace expressive terseness with marginally terser (but also no more terse, just different) and more ambiguous keywords and syntax.
I'm not interested in some tweaks to syntax that save a few lines I type automatically (or that Eclipse could automatically generate) in Java already. The overhead of learning a new language at all, with its typos and brainos, is bigger than any productivity or accuracy benefit it brings.
What would be useful would be a language that deterministically compiles to a runnable logic graph, and back from flowchart to text, that's as straightforward to program lexically in as Java, which we already know. And that runs on the JVM. That would be a useful new language. It should allow more multiprocessing, which hasn't been at all tapped in today's multicore CPUs with correlated parallel IO streams and structured relations selecting among many object datastructures dominating the runtime environment. New CPUs are coming bundled with FPGA, and every CPU has a parallel MAC array ASIC it can orchestrate from disk, net and memory DBs. Something really new that's dataflow, which still uses the old lexical tools, would really go bang.
The rest is like the "perfect text editor" that most programmers dream of writing, that is surely no better than emacs - or rather, than Eclipse. Not worth the effort to create, or to learn, compared with what that effort could produce using the language/editor/IDE, but writing more executable code rather than more tools that get you only a little further.
It was thought so, but it has proven not to be. Proven by actions in courts. Counteractions have their own countereffects. The countereffect is to make it harder.
Your willingness to give up and say there is nothing we can do in the system to protect our rights is equally as important as the support from the large part of the public you're saying means we're doomed.
Why is my wording no better? The current precedents that allow privacy violations "because there's no right to privacy in the Constitution" would be useless when the court hears "Amendment 30 says quite clearly that the court must protect the privacy right, in this case in their papers and effects". That makes damaging privacy much harder, without those precedents.
What you're arguing is that no amendment or law wording can possibly protect us. While we have a corrupt system, it is not nearly as corrupt as that. However, if enough people believe that it is, as you evidently do, it will become that corrupt. The mere act of the people and our legislatures passing such an amendment makes a strong argument to courts that the right must be protected and enforced.
Because the police state also wants the power to do whatever the cops want, without being subject to anyone else, especially judges in a separate and theoretically independent branch.
And just as Congress has let the president take so much of its power, like declaring war and everything that comes with it, the Judicial Branch has let the cops (Executive Branch) take its power to decide what rights can be infringed. They've all got so much more power than the Constitution creates for them that they're not even jealous when another branch takes some of theirs. In fact they're codependent on letting each other steal powers from the others.
It's obvious the government is lying about what it's doing so it can violate our privacy rights. The purpose of a judge is to be a reasonable human who can see that the government is lying, and stop the government. Judges who don't see through these lies are obviously either stupid, corrupt or both.
We need a Constitutional Amendment that simply says
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects is a right to privacy.
Because over the years stupidity and corruption have allowed the Fourth Amendment to fail to protect our privacy, when that is the right it instructs the government to protect:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Even stupid and corrupt judges, to say nothing of stupid and corrupt congressmembers and police, will have a harder time using the government to damage our rights instead of protecting them.
Right, that's what I'm saying: a the light of a disc's image interfering with itself in a lens.
What I'm asking is why they don't recompose the image of the disc to show us? I'm not nearly as interested in the light after gravity has lensed it, even if that's the technique this project used to get the disc. The point of the effort is the image of the disc.
But iP[a,o]ds are not "reasonably priced". The iPad costs twice its build cost, which is a lot of profit even after the rest of the costs to deliver to and support the consumer. Actual competition, rather than that unfairly prevented by the practices reported in this article, would shrink that profit to a reasonable one.
Android developers get the OS for free, which is a big part of Apple's extra costs that still fit nicely within that large profit.
So Apple's secret weapon is to monopolize parts so its competitors can't afford them? Using its huge cash stack built on monopoly agreements with music and video publishers (in turn built on monopoly copyright rules) and monopoly telco lockins. It's monopoly money everywhere you look.
All of which "influences industry pricing" to keep everyone's products more expensive than they have to be, or would be if there were proper competition.
Even if it's the jets, the image of the jets looks like a fairly simple diffraction pattern in the image. Why not process the pattern into the original signal, whatever it is?
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't upgraded my Ubuntu 11.04 to 11.10 because I like my GNOME Desktop the way it's been, not whatever this new thing is. But I don't want to miss the rest of the upgrades. Is there a way to keep the old style Desktop, but complete the rest of the upgrade?
And what about on my old machines that run Intel motherboard integrated graphics (82854G/GL), that often break with Ubuntu upgrades for at least a few weeks until xorg-intel patches are released? No, I don't want to buy new machines that otherwise do their job exactly the way they should, especially not to suit a "$free" OS.
Thanks for the supporting evidence of what I just said.
How did you know that the attack was "100% landed"?
Wait - if you think that the news has put together a coherent sentence since the planes started crashing, don't answer that. Especially if you think the news has had a sentence, coherent or not, before the government has given it to say.
In 2010 Nielsen said that only 9% of American households received only terrestrial broadcast TV (ie. not cable or satellite). That number might have increased as the recession has made dropping paid services in favor of free (plus a possible digital converter/antenna) terrestrial broadcasts, but not much.
However, I would expect that a much larger proportion of that tenth of American households is in reach of an alertable emergency, like flood or tornado. More who don't work, so are isolated at home, need it. More children on average in those households, so more Americans. So I wouldn't be surprised if over 25-30% of Americans who needs these alerts can get them only over broadcast TV. I also expect they watch more TV on average than Americans overall, especially without the Internet.
And because people in that condition have a higher chance of being stupid losers, who watch TV all day in their trailer park surrounded by more children than they can afford to feed or relocate from an emergency. But those people still need the public to warn them of emergencies.
Yes, and in an emergency that control is necessary. Especially if the media outlet wouldn't voluntarily cooperate. The media resistance is the coup; the government is already the government.
If the emergency didn't warrant the government control, the media outlets could and would immediately sue the government. If the legal system were changed by the emergency response, the media outlets would continue to resist in ways that would be more powerful that the government, unless the people went along with the government.
But all this is moot. For a decade the government has been operating without regard to law or our rights, under cover of the "Global War on Terror" or whatever they call it this year. The real story is that the media outlets covering 99%+ of the audience are part of the "coup" that daily damages our rights, and robs and kills us with our rights abandoned.
Did you do anything about it while Bush/Cheney set it up and screwed us for 7 years with it?
The message will be a phone# to call to claim cash prizes. They'll count the winners.
So if they didn't switch to all digital, and so couldn't broadcast on any TV stations since the stations are now all digital, you couldn't receive it from any station near or far, you would care?
Because your Bush Derangement Syndrome makes you deny anything is Bush's fault, regardless of even relevance. You Republicans got it the worst. Which is how you gave us Bush twice.
On September 11, 2001, the Emergency Alert System (that replaced the Emergency Broadcast System in 1998) did not alert anything. NYC and DC were under multiple attack by planes that immediately crippled the country, surging panic throughout the nation and the world, and driving the USA down the path of ruinous war. But there were no announcements, no sirens, no alerts. Emergency, but no alerts. Precisely the kind of emergency the system was sold to the public to address. After decades, finally needed, useless.
The official explanation is so much media coverage that it wasn't needed. As if any event requiring the system to work is going to go uncovered by the commercial media. That means the policy is for the system never to actually be used.
All those years of "testing" the system, all the money spent, all the alternate preparations ignored in favor of that one - all a total waste.
The weirdest thing is that it took years before I even heard someone mention that it didn't work. A forgettable comedian in about 2004-2005 had about 45 seconds about it
Now they'll spend a load of money on something else. It might even work. But since nobody even noticed, there'll be no reason for this new one to work. Except for those annoying tests that interrupt us. And leave us expecting we've built something necessary in an emergency, when we've just wasted more money on military contractors who delivered nothing.
Sorry I expected more than you prompted with the quote.
Running perl -Dx (perl must have been compiled with -DDEBUGGING ) dumps the Perl op code tree that perl compiles the script into. There is some discussion of the architecture, some discussion of the tree, a example walkthru and some documentation of the facility, as well as work using the system.
But it looks like (especially in the last several years) more "Perl call graph" work focuses on lexically parsing the Perl source. Which to me seems a great waste of this fascinating facility. Even though the graph is of a stack machine, not dataflow exactly, it seems like an interesting facility to target with a graph editor.
Java 7 has closures. And these type inferences are poorly implemented, especially conflicting with reflection.
These are some tweaks to syntax, especially the type inferences.
I don't see where JavaSpaces can be programmed with graphs, with conversion back and forth between text and graphs.
I don't see that there's a Lucid compiler to JVM bytecode.
Perl used to have a feature where the runtime would dump the object graph it compiles the source text into, which might have been a platform for converting a graph dump to source text. But though there are some ways to compile Perl to JVM bytecode, I don't see any evidence that Perl even supports the graph dump anymore.
There's something wrong with you if your Java executable is slower than C++. You're a bad Java programmer, or you're using a 10 year old machine (or a 15 year old JVM), or you just have your current environment badly configured.
Java is also fairly terse and elegant. As this new language shows by laboring mightily to replace expressive terseness with marginally terser (but also no more terse, just different) and more ambiguous keywords and syntax.
Never happened to me, on either Ubuntu or Windows 7, for many projects for several years. Usually on 2-5 year old HW, with moderate RAM.
It sounds like it's probably your fault.
I'm not interested in some tweaks to syntax that save a few lines I type automatically (or that Eclipse could automatically generate) in Java already. The overhead of learning a new language at all, with its typos and brainos, is bigger than any productivity or accuracy benefit it brings.
What would be useful would be a language that deterministically compiles to a runnable logic graph, and back from flowchart to text, that's as straightforward to program lexically in as Java, which we already know. And that runs on the JVM. That would be a useful new language. It should allow more multiprocessing, which hasn't been at all tapped in today's multicore CPUs with correlated parallel IO streams and structured relations selecting among many object datastructures dominating the runtime environment. New CPUs are coming bundled with FPGA, and every CPU has a parallel MAC array ASIC it can orchestrate from disk, net and memory DBs. Something really new that's dataflow, which still uses the old lexical tools, would really go bang.
The rest is like the "perfect text editor" that most programmers dream of writing, that is surely no better than emacs - or rather, than Eclipse. Not worth the effort to create, or to learn, compared with what that effort could produce using the language/editor/IDE, but writing more executable code rather than more tools that get you only a little further.
I'd rather die a free man in my grave / than live as a puppet or a slave.
Here's just one example that took 5 seconds to document: iTunes exclusive releases.
Keep your lazy slander to yourself. Even couched in weasel words like "I suspect" you're a jerk.
It was thought so, but it has proven not to be. Proven by actions in courts. Counteractions have their own countereffects. The countereffect is to make it harder.
Your willingness to give up and say there is nothing we can do in the system to protect our rights is equally as important as the support from the large part of the public you're saying means we're doomed.
Why is my wording no better? The current precedents that allow privacy violations "because there's no right to privacy in the Constitution" would be useless when the court hears "Amendment 30 says quite clearly that the court must protect the privacy right, in this case in their papers and effects". That makes damaging privacy much harder, without those precedents.
What you're arguing is that no amendment or law wording can possibly protect us. While we have a corrupt system, it is not nearly as corrupt as that. However, if enough people believe that it is, as you evidently do, it will become that corrupt. The mere act of the people and our legislatures passing such an amendment makes a strong argument to courts that the right must be protected and enforced.
Because the police state also wants the power to do whatever the cops want, without being subject to anyone else, especially judges in a separate and theoretically independent branch.
And just as Congress has let the president take so much of its power, like declaring war and everything that comes with it, the Judicial Branch has let the cops (Executive Branch) take its power to decide what rights can be infringed. They've all got so much more power than the Constitution creates for them that they're not even jealous when another branch takes some of theirs. In fact they're codependent on letting each other steal powers from the others.
It's obvious the government is lying about what it's doing so it can violate our privacy rights. The purpose of a judge is to be a reasonable human who can see that the government is lying, and stop the government. Judges who don't see through these lies are obviously either stupid, corrupt or both.
We need a Constitutional Amendment that simply says
Because over the years stupidity and corruption have allowed the Fourth Amendment to fail to protect our privacy, when that is the right it instructs the government to protect:
Even stupid and corrupt judges, to say nothing of stupid and corrupt congressmembers and police, will have a harder time using the government to damage our rights instead of protecting them.
Right, that's what I'm saying: a the light of a disc's image interfering with itself in a lens.
What I'm asking is why they don't recompose the image of the disc to show us? I'm not nearly as interested in the light after gravity has lensed it, even if that's the technique this project used to get the disc. The point of the effort is the image of the disc.
But iP[a,o]ds are not "reasonably priced". The iPad costs twice its build cost, which is a lot of profit even after the rest of the costs to deliver to and support the consumer. Actual competition, rather than that unfairly prevented by the practices reported in this article, would shrink that profit to a reasonable one.
Android developers get the OS for free, which is a big part of Apple's extra costs that still fit nicely within that large profit.
So Apple's secret weapon is to monopolize parts so its competitors can't afford them? Using its huge cash stack built on monopoly agreements with music and video publishers (in turn built on monopoly copyright rules) and monopoly telco lockins. It's monopoly money everywhere you look.
All of which "influences industry pricing" to keep everyone's products more expensive than they have to be, or would be if there were proper competition.
Even if it's the jets, the image of the jets looks like a fairly simple diffraction pattern in the image. Why not process the pattern into the original signal, whatever it is?