I don't know about being Christian but there's no need to have belief in the Bible. It's a fact. It does exist. I've seen it on several occasions (usually in hotels for some reason).
So, it's no longer a matter of faith. The Bible is for real.
I just used all my mod points then I read your post. So now I've got to throw them all away.
WINE Is Not an Emulator. It is a re-implementation of the win32 API. There is no emulation going on, just alternative implementations of the windows API calls. Some of them, apparently, are faster than Microsoft's own implementations.
So, if WINE was complete (which it's not) you really could throw away Windows and there would be no good reason to expect a drop in performance.
Not sure what you're talking about, I have a dual 18" LCD setup running Debian and it works with no problems whatsoever. OK, I suppose three monitors might introduce problems of managing multiple video cards depending on how you're doing it, but really, do your research and how hard can it be?
OK, I know what I'm doing, but that's only because I read the fucking manual. I mean, I used to moan about XFree86 configuration in the old days, when you had to enter modelines and stuff, but it's pretty straightforward now.
As for Linux wireless support, yes it's been less than perfect but again, buy supported kit and it works. I'm posting from a Thinkpad 600X on a 3COM 54g card which has been running fine for about a year now, and it took a couple of hours to setup.
No, from my understanding (I own a Karma, and I spent about three months reading pretty much every post on the Karma forums) the problem is with the hard disk; sometimes (rarely, it's never happened to me) surface tension can prevent the disk spinning up after a spin down.
Banging the Karma releases the surface tension. Rio deny this (they say they can't reproduce the problem) but if it's not a problem with the hard disk then I'd like to hear the alternatives (I don't buy your ideas that it "produces a good error" or "knocks the firmware out of it's loop", sorry!)
The Karma is by no means perfect but:
* The sound is great * OGG, FLAC * No DRM * Nice DJ features * Nice interface * Ethernet * Great battery life * It's not a poncy, proprietary and expensive iPod.
If they could fix the stability issues, and add:
* USB Mass Storage support (for USB2 Linux connectivity) * Remote control over Ethernet (sit comfy and control what songs play from my laptop or PDA) * A record function
then
* Make it smaller * Make it cheaper * Fit an even bigger hard disk
it would be perfect.
Is that a better review than the story? Mod me up.
That's OK; you pay for the BBC. When I watch, it's usually not the BBC. Nor do I mind adverts in between shows. Why should I pay for the BBC? Give me a GOOD reason. I bet you can't.
I pay for the school system and I don't have kids - or intend to - but I don't make a song and dance about it. I pay for people with children to receive tax benefits but I don't whine. OK sometimes I do whine but not in earnest.
Eat the cost and recognise the benefits to society. Or why don't you and your 2999 fellow petition signatories get on the streets and march?
Have you noticed how we Brits defend the BBC? We generally don't mind paying the license fee. I minded, as a student, because I preferred to spend my money on wine and partying. But as an adult, I see the value.
I don't watch much TV but when I do it's usually BBC. I have BBC radio 4 on most of the time I am in my flat because they have some truly excellent programmes.
It's not like the US is a parragon of freedom anyway. Remember prohibition from your histroy classes? And of course it's still around, in the form of the "War on Drugs". Yes we have it too, but my point remains.
OK, I can understand that, but you're assuming the existence of a god who categorises us as unworthy; I'm not.
There's a difference between imperfection and unworthiness. I hold that I'm imperfect in comparison with my ideals. Also that I'm generally and irrecoverably insignificant.
Christianity holds that we're unworthy to some theoretical supreme being who will punish us for that unless we redeem ourselves. I find this idea ridiculous, because I find such a being ridiculous and cruel. He sounds more like a bully than someone deserving of my respect.
we need to humble ourselves and accept that we are imperfect
Oh, don't worry, I know I'm (very) imperfect and I'm certainly humble in the face of the universe - I'm completely insignificant in the scheme of things. No doubt of that.
For me, part of the experience of being alive is about recognising and coming to terms with my imperfections.
But why that should imply me obeisance to some arbitrary superior being I'm unsure.
Maybe I didn't get the exact details of that tag correct. There was a sample page and I visited it and I lost my keyboard. I'm not going back there to view source, sorry!
I loaded up Firefox at work today and went to the Mozilla home page. I was greeted with a page telling me there was a critical security related bug which required an update. I am assuming the bug was the one under discussion. That was on 1.0PR1. That's a Windows box though so I couldn't test.
I'm running 0.8 at home on Linux so can't tell you one way or the other.
God does not exist to poked and prodded. God comes with a shrink-wrapped definition - all powerful creator being. Yes, there are differences between the gods of different religions, but that's the general idea.
So if God does exist, and he appears to us, he has to fall in line with the preconceived notions of what he is, otherwise he is not God, but is instead something else.
Imagine prior to the discovery of radiation that such a phenomenon were hypothesised and a complete set of laws governing it were drawn up. If a thing came along which matched those laws then it would be called radiation. Because the laws are already drawn up, there's no point trying to find them out! If you had to do that, then the phenomenon under study would not have matched the definition of radiation, and would get another name.
Re:That explains those mysterious hirings
on
Breaking Google's DRM
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
While I agree with your conclusion - that it's reasonable to assume God does not exist - I don't think your argument really stands up, because you are relying on there being no difference between lack of evidence for the existence of insignificant things - unicorns, polkadotty aircraft carriers - and lack of evidence for the existence of something very significant - an all powerful supernatural creator.
The existence or otherwise of God has serious repercussions, and will therefore tend to be treated seriously by some individuals. The existence of unicorns - while undoubtedly interesting, if it were to be demonstrated, has no serious repercussions.
People can dismiss unicorns easily because it doesn't really matter. People can't easily dismiss the existence of something with total control over them and everything else.
Personally I find the idea of an all-powerful supernatural being who must be obeyed frankly repugnant to my sense of decency and personal moral responsibility, so even if there were a God, two fingers to him and he can burn me after death if he wants - ouch - at least I'll have my honour intact (I did it myyyyy waaaayyy)!
tag in it and it swallows your console, i.e. your keyboard stops working.
Trust me, I just tried it and if I didn't have gtop (to kill Firefox with my mouse - exiting from the file menu didn't kill the process) I'd have had to hit the power switch.
I support your attempt to draw the distinction between non-commercial and free software, but you've completely missed his point, even though you quoted the important parts of it.
When software is not sold and is freely available, it's not commercial.
Yes, you can sell GPL software, but you don't have to, GPL (well, any) software that is given away rather than sold falls into the category our resident lawyer is flagging up.
Maybe if you give away something for commercial ends (freebies, back handers, etc) then that wouldn't slip through, but that's not the case he's covering.
Your claim is that broken things return to a normal state by some sinusoidal magic built in to nature.
My claim is that you're wrong - broken things don't usually fix themselves, more often they stay broken.
Your claim leads to complacency. My claim leads to conservational action.
Yes, there are cases where nature will restore order on its own. Some people smoke all their lives and don't get lung cancer, but you wouldn't advocate smoking on that basis, would you?
Just kind of how nature works. Sine fucntions abound.
Yeah:
* Graveyards are full of vacated plots * Cancer patients generally recover, given time * The silicon on a fried athlon core will eventually rewire itself * I'm still drinking a bottle of wine from 1993 * Microsoft's security is getting better and better * The idiots are slowly but surely leaving slashdot to get on with whatever they did before
Right, but I can implement a restart of the ADSL modem in 1 minute with a £3.99 timer switch, rather than the considerably greater time and expense of going the X10 route.
Sounds like a batch run. Like what banks do every night to reconcile accounts. At least I know one place where they still do that, can't speak for anywhere else.
Why a college would do big batch jobs I don't know, though.
So do you need someone standing there watching it all the time in case it crashes? That's what you're implying - that unless a system is watched then there's no guarantee it will do what you want it to do. Fair enough, but I would have thought an automated monitoring system could happily replace a baby sitter.
You might say that a reboot introduces a level of risk which, combined with the risk of a monitoring system failure (which should itself be alerted on using failsafe methods) is to high for such a system. In which case, implement a system which doesn't need rebooted. If the system is so important, it's important enough to be stable!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about being Christian but there's no need to have belief in the Bible. It's a fact. It does exist. I've seen it on several occasions (usually in hotels for some reason).
So, it's no longer a matter of faith. The Bible is for real.
I just used all my mod points then I read your post. So now I've got to throw them all away.
WINE Is Not an Emulator. It is a re-implementation of the win32 API. There is no emulation going on, just alternative implementations of the windows API calls. Some of them, apparently, are faster than Microsoft's own implementations.
So, if WINE was complete (which it's not) you really could throw away Windows and there would be no good reason to expect a drop in performance.
You'll need to port it to Sparc first though, but I suppose that would be a learning experience and progress for Hurd!
Not sure what you're talking about, I have a dual 18" LCD setup running Debian and it works with no problems whatsoever. OK, I suppose three monitors might introduce problems of managing multiple video cards depending on how you're doing it, but really, do your research and how hard can it be?
OK, I know what I'm doing, but that's only because I read the fucking manual. I mean, I used to moan about XFree86 configuration in the old days, when you had to enter modelines and stuff, but it's pretty straightforward now.
As for Linux wireless support, yes it's been less than perfect but again, buy supported kit and it works. I'm posting from a Thinkpad 600X on a 3COM 54g card which has been running fine for about a year now, and it took a couple of hours to setup.
You would need more hardware for that - i.e. dual video chipsets or a dedicated dual-head chipset a la Matrox. This means more cost.
Laptop's external video ports are just intelligently switched replicators of the signal to the built-in LCD.
Perhaps some laptops do come with proper dual-head functionality but you'll pay for it, and it's a bit of a niche market.
And, it's MR Fucking Spock!
And his point is that CDs are digital.
No, from my understanding (I own a Karma, and I spent about three months reading pretty much every post on the Karma forums) the problem is with the hard disk; sometimes (rarely, it's never happened to me) surface tension can prevent the disk spinning up after a spin down.
Banging the Karma releases the surface tension. Rio deny this (they say they can't reproduce the problem) but if it's not a problem with the hard disk then I'd like to hear the alternatives (I don't buy your ideas that it "produces a good error" or "knocks the firmware out of it's loop", sorry!)
The Karma is by no means perfect but:
* The sound is great
* OGG, FLAC
* No DRM
* Nice DJ features
* Nice interface
* Ethernet
* Great battery life
* It's not a poncy, proprietary and expensive iPod.
If they could fix the stability issues, and add:
* USB Mass Storage support (for USB2 Linux connectivity)
* Remote control over Ethernet (sit comfy and control what songs play from my laptop or PDA)
* A record function
then
* Make it smaller
* Make it cheaper
* Fit an even bigger hard disk
it would be perfect.
Is that a better review than the story? Mod me up.
That's OK; you pay for the BBC. When I watch, it's usually not the BBC. Nor do I mind adverts in between shows. Why should I pay for the BBC? Give me a GOOD reason. I bet you can't.
I pay for the school system and I don't have kids - or intend to - but I don't make a song and dance about it. I pay for people with children to receive tax benefits but I don't whine. OK sometimes I do whine but not in earnest.
Eat the cost and recognise the benefits to society. Or why don't you and your 2999 fellow petition signatories get on the streets and march?
Have you noticed how we Brits defend the BBC? We generally don't mind paying the license fee. I minded, as a student, because I preferred to spend my money on wine and partying. But as an adult, I see the value.
I don't watch much TV but when I do it's usually BBC. I have BBC radio 4 on most of the time I am in my flat because they have some truly excellent programmes.
It's not like the US is a parragon of freedom anyway. Remember prohibition from your histroy classes? And of course it's still around, in the form of the "War on Drugs". Yes we have it too, but my point remains.
OK, I can understand that, but you're assuming the existence of a god who categorises us as unworthy; I'm not.
There's a difference between imperfection and unworthiness. I hold that I'm imperfect in comparison with my ideals. Also that I'm generally and irrecoverably insignificant.
Christianity holds that we're unworthy to some theoretical supreme being who will punish us for that unless we redeem ourselves. I find this idea ridiculous, because I find such a being ridiculous and cruel. He sounds more like a bully than someone deserving of my respect.
we need to humble ourselves and accept that we are imperfect
Oh, don't worry, I know I'm (very) imperfect and I'm certainly humble in the face of the universe - I'm completely insignificant in the scheme of things. No doubt of that.
For me, part of the experience of being alive is about recognising and coming to terms with my imperfections.
But why that should imply me obeisance to some arbitrary superior being I'm unsure.
yet I doubt anyone reading this is going to suddenly start worrying about this potentiality.
Fair enough, though it happens to be one that I'm interested in. Certainly more interested in that than in the possibility of unicorns.
Maybe I didn't get the exact details of that tag correct. There was a sample page and I visited it and I lost my keyboard. I'm not going back there to view source, sorry!
I loaded up Firefox at work today and went to the Mozilla home page. I was greeted with a page telling me there was a critical security related bug which required an update. I am assuming the bug was the one under discussion. That was on 1.0PR1. That's a Windows box though so I couldn't test.
I'm running 0.8 at home on Linux so can't tell you one way or the other.
God does not exist to poked and prodded. God comes with a shrink-wrapped definition - all powerful creator being. Yes, there are differences between the gods of different religions, but that's the general idea.
So if God does exist, and he appears to us, he has to fall in line with the preconceived notions of what he is, otherwise he is not God, but is instead something else.
Imagine prior to the discovery of radiation that such a phenomenon were hypothesised and a complete set of laws governing it were drawn up. If a thing came along which matched those laws then it would be called radiation. Because the laws are already drawn up, there's no point trying to find them out! If you had to do that, then the phenomenon under study would not have matched the definition of radiation, and would get another name.
While I agree with your conclusion - that it's reasonable to assume God does not exist - I don't think your argument really stands up, because you are relying on there being no difference between lack of evidence for the existence of insignificant things - unicorns, polkadotty aircraft carriers - and lack of evidence for the existence of something very significant - an all powerful supernatural creator.
The existence or otherwise of God has serious repercussions, and will therefore tend to be treated seriously by some individuals. The existence of unicorns - while undoubtedly interesting, if it were to be demonstrated, has no serious repercussions.
People can dismiss unicorns easily because it doesn't really matter. People can't easily dismiss the existence of something with total control over them and everything else.
Personally I find the idea of an all-powerful supernatural being who must be obeyed frankly repugnant to my sense of decency and personal moral responsibility, so even if there were a God, two fingers to him and he can burn me after death if he wants - ouch - at least I'll have my honour intact (I did it myyyyy waaaayyy)!
Trust me, I just tried it and if I didn't have gtop (to kill Firefox with my mouse - exiting from the file menu didn't kill the process) I'd have had to hit the power switch.
Ouch.
Half an espresso?
I keep reading about PVRs. Where are all the CVRs they presumably replace?
I support your attempt to draw the distinction between non-commercial and free software, but you've completely missed his point, even though you quoted the important parts of it.
When software is not sold and is freely available, it's not commercial.
Yes, you can sell GPL software, but you don't have to, GPL (well, any) software that is given away rather than sold falls into the category our resident lawyer is flagging up.
Maybe if you give away something for commercial ends (freebies, back handers, etc) then that wouldn't slip through, but that's not the case he's covering.
Your claim is that broken things return to a normal state by some sinusoidal magic built in to nature.
My claim is that you're wrong - broken things don't usually fix themselves, more often they stay broken.
Your claim leads to complacency. My claim leads to conservational action.
Yes, there are cases where nature will restore order on its own. Some people smoke all their lives and don't get lung cancer, but you wouldn't advocate smoking on that basis, would you?
Just kind of how nature works. Sine fucntions abound.
Yeah:
* Graveyards are full of vacated plots
* Cancer patients generally recover, given time
* The silicon on a fried athlon core will eventually rewire itself
* I'm still drinking a bottle of wine from 1993
* Microsoft's security is getting better and better
* The idiots are slowly but surely leaving slashdot to get on with whatever they did before
Sine fucntions everywhere.
Right, but I can implement a restart of the ADSL modem in 1 minute with a £3.99 timer switch, rather than the considerably greater time and expense of going the X10 route.
Sounds like a batch run. Like what banks do every night to reconcile accounts. At least I know one place where they still do that, can't speak for anywhere else.
Why a college would do big batch jobs I don't know, though.
So do you need someone standing there watching it all the time in case it crashes? That's what you're implying - that unless a system is watched then there's no guarantee it will do what you want it to do. Fair enough, but I would have thought an automated monitoring system could happily replace a baby sitter.
You might say that a reboot introduces a level of risk which, combined with the risk of a monitoring system failure (which should itself be alerted on using failsafe methods) is to high for such a system. In which case, implement a system which doesn't need rebooted. If the system is so important, it's important enough to be stable!