To be honest, this just sounds like a 'no true Scotsman' argument. 'Love' is defined as only those parts of love which are positive, uplifting, and nuturative, and the potentially nasty baggage (possessiveness, obsession, etc) are wtritten off as something separate.
Except that love is defined, by our society, as "positive, uplifting, nuturative", etc. We as society *define* obsession, posessiveness, etc, as things separate and distinct from love. Therefore the No True Scotsman fallacy does not apply.
I live in a big city where there are fairly consistent patterns of behavior which you'd consider polite and civil (folks hold doors for each other, say excuse me when they bump into someone, offer subway seats to the elderly or infirm, etc). I don't think this is due so much to some hidden wellspring of love for our common man as much as a desire to keep things running smoothly
You're missing the point. Where did you learn those socialized behaviours from? Your family and friends. And why did your family and friends help to nuture and socialize you? Love.
That's my point. Love is at the very heart of our most basic social structure: the family (however you define it... nuclear, extended, etc). Everything else is built on that substrate.
a human is also an entity and a form of energy, in addition to the body mass and the heat it generates.
No, it's not.
physically it should have been impossible for 20 of them to combine and create exponentially higher impact on their environment.
I can't even describe how incredibly wrong and stupid this statement is. By this definition termites must have some sort of "higher energy" (ever seen an African termite nest?).
therefore, philosophically, according to conservation of energy
Good Christ, man. Now you're going to try to co-opt the laws of conservation of energy, despite clearly having no idea what you're talking about? Here, let me explain it to you:
The sun beams energy, in the form of radiation, to Earth. Plants convert that radiation into chemical energy. I eat that chemical energy. I then expend said chemical energy welding a girder to a skyscraper.
Hey, look at that, I'm increasing the order of my local universe by utilizing energy provided to me by the sun. No magic needed.
this tells that when a human complex dies, there is some other form of energy released that equals everything that human complex did in his life minus his body mass and heat.
And that tells me that you're so desperate to believe that you'll survive after you're dead that you'll make up basically anything. You know, like Jesus did.
Let me make this simple: when you die, you're dead. Your body decomposes, and the various compounds that make up your corpse enter the food chain. That's it. So make the best of this life. It's the only one you get, and once it's done, it's *done*.
Sure, love is a powerful force that we generally consider "good", but love can be quite dark and twisted at times,
Yeah, at which point, it ain't love anymore. At best it's infatuation. More likely, it's obsession. But it sure ain't love.
Why does love get touted around on a pedestal like it's some miracle thing?
Because love is what ties people together. It binds mother to child, husband to wife, friend to friend. It's a constructive, creative force, and it's ultimately the foundation human society is built upon.
'course, I'm not sure I really understood any of this until I met my wife. Love isn't what you think it is when you're experiencing a high school infatuation.
Well, when your loved one dies and you start seeing things, take a picture. Because until I see hard evidence, I think it's safe to say that misfiring brain cells are a *far* more likely explanation for this particular phenomenon.
but I don't understand the difference between "increase in value of an individual unit of currency" and "a decrease of the purchase price of goods" or why the former is deflation and the later isn't.
Because in this very specific case, what we actually have is the currency of another economy declining. So, here in Canada, the value of the Canadian dollar *isn't* actually increasing in value. The Canadian money supply is not coming down, there aren't fewer dollars circulating relative to the size of the economy (which is what real deflation is). What we have is a case of *some* goods declining in value because the US economy is in the toilet. But many other goods, such as houses, commodities, and others, are not affected, and so you don't have a deflationary scenario.
In a deflationary scenario, the value of *all* goods decreases (in absolute currency units) as the money supply contracts (relative to the size of the economy). And as that happens, all those other nasty things start kicking in. The values of homes and other assets decline, while the size of the debt used to purchase them does not. There's pressure to decrease wages, which can hurt small businesses. And as wages decline, people's ability to pay their debts, which haven't gone down, declines along with it. It's a nasty cycle, and definitely *much* worse than inflation.
'So the fact that a dollar will buy way more than it did a month ago doesn't mean "the increase in value of an individual unit of currency"?'
No, it doesn't. In a truly deflationary scenario, the fact that your "dollar" can buy more than it did a month ago is consequence of the dollar increasing in value, not the other way 'round.
From a more technical standpoint, deflation is a reduction in the total money supply. What that means is there are fewer units of currency circulating in the economy, which means each individual unit of currency is ultimately worth more.
What *you* saw wasn't true deflation, ie a reduction in the money supply. It was a decrease in cost of some imported goods thanks to a reduced foreign currency value. But the value of *your* currency wasn't actually increasing. It's a very different thing, and I find it baffling that you can't see that.
Uhuh. So, tell me, what does the local carpenter do when the local industry tanks thanks to the credit bubble bursting? Let's see, they could:
1) Educate themselves in a different field. Problem: They can't get a student loan because the banks aren't giving out credit. Besides which, they can't afford to take time off to re-educate because they're busy, you know... surviving.
2) Move. Sorry, no money == no mobility. Besides, the industry is tanking nation-wide.
3) Get a different job. Ah, but there aren't any. The few that do exist pay worse, possibly so much worse that they can no longer support themselves.
So, got any other ideas?, smart guy?
We all were born broke.
Uhh, no. Most people are born into a family that has some sort of income or wealth. Some a *lot* more than others. Those that aren't are relegated to the gutters of society because, despite what the hilariously deluded Libertarians would tell us, most people can not, in fact, pull themselves up "by their own bootstraps". 'course, your average Slashdotter doesn't really get this because they've never actually left their parent's comfy basement (metaphorically speaking).
People who lose thier jobs have no business blaming Washington (or London, or wherever) if thier employer or your entire industry went belly up and they didn't make the right choices that result in thier continued employment... or *employability*... somewhere else.
Uhh... who said anything about blaming Washington?
Look, your original post was the absolutely ridiculous claim that you "refuse to participate in any recession", then suggesting that everyone else should just do the same. Sorry bub, that's just naive. *Really* naive.
I stand a far, FAR greater chance of being put out in the street.
Ha ha ha. Yeah, right. Tell that to your local carpenter or welder.
That's not deflation. The fact you believe it is suggests to me that you don't really know what you're talking about.
Deflation is the increase in value of an individual unit of currency, *not* a decrease of the purchase price of goods. The latter is simply a secondary effect resulting from the former.
An increase in the value of currency is bad over the long term because:
1) It encourages investors to invest in currency instead of things that generate economic growth (homes, small businesses, etc).
2) It hurts borrowers because the amount of debt for a given loan *increases* during deflation, as the value of an individual dollar goes up, while the absolute value, in terms of units of currency, of loans remain fixed. This discourages leveraging, which, in proper ratios, is a very good thing for the economy (think home and small business loans).
3) Wage inelasticity means that employers are harmed because they cannot reduce wages to compensate for deflation (people don't like seeing their wages go down), while being forced to reduce the price of their goods or services.
I'm sure there are many other issues, but these are just the first couple that come to mind.
Says the guy on a tech forum who probably has some sort of higher degree or otherwise advanced and specialized skillset. Meanwhile, the average Joe out there faces the real possibility of layoffs, and with a contracting job market, long-term unemployment on the horizon.
*You* may not choose to participate in the recession, but there are millions who will likely have no choice in the matter.
All the gold that will ever exist on earth is already here, and we find a little more every year.
And thus it places a hard cap on the size of your economy, and creates a real possibility of deflation, which is far *far* worse than inflation. Yay gold standard!
Faith that an industry that produces nothing and adds no value can be the most significant industry nonetheless and make EVERYTHING else secondary. It is not the first time.
Producing nothing of value? What? *If* the ratings agencies had done their job properly, and *if* we had regulation to ensure transparency and to control the ridiculously complex instruments that were traded, and *if* people didn't leverage up to ridiculous levels, and *if* people didn't have this silly notion that property values go up monotonically, the mortgage-backed and other derivatives securities markets were/are a *very good thing*. It brought cheap money to people so they could buy homes, invest in small businesses, and any number of other things, thus injecting cash straight into the economy, right at the consumer level. In essence, it provided a path from investors to the little guy. It's an excellent idea!
Assuming, of course, that regulation was there to ensure that everything was on the level. Unfortunately, the Greenspans of the world figured that was a bad idea.
The 3 law are the condition sine qua non, the fundament of the stories. Take I, robot, the 3 laws are not essential, and actually are just an add-on, a flavor. Which is why it is a treason of Asimov writing and story.
No, the *four* (4) laws are key to the story working. The entire reason the robots "rebel" is because, as interpreted by the writers of the film, the zeroeth law requires the robots protect humanity for it's own good. Without the four laws, the entire movie would fall apart, as there would be no reason for there to be a conflict between humanity and the robots.
Yeah, but you have to look at the line in context. Rorshach is railing against a city he believes has becoming unredeemably corrupt. That the people there are nothing more than "whores and politicians", "liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers". And so when they alter the quote to be about "the world", I don't think it substantively changes the meaning of the monologue, while it does make it a little more "trailer-friendly", and more importantly, rating-friendly (it may be that using the word "whore" would limit the movies they could play the trailer in).
So, while I don't have incredibly high hopes just yet, I'm withholding judgment until I've seen it.
A "real" language has been classically defined to mean "a language which can compile itself."
Complete and total bullshit. If you deny that Python and Perl "compile" themselves, than neither do Lisp or Smalltalk, two of the fundamental pillars of modern programming language pedigree. And I don't think anyone familiar with those languages would claim they aren't "real".
If you then concede that dynamically byte-compiled languages like Lisp, Smalltalk, Java, and C#, among others, qualify as "real" programming languages based on some reinterpretation of your "definition", then any dynamic Javascript compiler (like, say, V8) automatically promotes Javascript to a "real" language. Sounds like a pretty dubious definition to me.
Honestly, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, do you?
And why, exactly, isn't javascript a good language? I mean, it has it's warts that need mending, specifically namespaces and an import mechanism of some kind. Certainly, some people object to it being prototype-based, or that it's weakly typed, but those are just a matter of taste. But aside from those things, what's wrong with JS?
A "horrible" confluence of hacks that is fast, low-level, reliable, and object oriented and gives the programmer full access to everything?
You also forgot horribly complicated, inconsistent, and full of corners that can hang a programmer if they're not aware of them.
So you prefer slow, high-level, unreliable, procedural-based languages that give you little to no access to the underlying infrastructure?
Yeah, you got me. All alternatives to C++ are necessarily all of these things, and therefore that's what I look for in a language. How very clever of you.
Or is it just that they were never schooled in the old temple and given a proper appreciation of a real language like C++?
No offense, buddy, but anyone who looks to C++ as a general model for a "real" programming language needs to be taken out back and shot. C++ is a horrible confluence of hacks designed to address it's very specific design goals (a fast, system-level, strongly-typed, object-oriented programming language that gives the developer supreme control over what features are used), and I don't know any serious programmer who claims otherwise. But there are *many* programming languages out there *far* superior in their own domains, and Javascript is absolutely among them.
In short, yes, you're jaded, old, and behind the times. Open your mind. A world does, in fact, exist outside of systems-level application development.
Re:But does it run on .... shit that does not work
on
Fedora 10 Released
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Yum does have some pros over apt but they sure aren't speed and efficiency.
Good god, like what? I haven't found *anything* yum does better than apt.
So you're telling me there will be a GSM module in the laptop that is constantly connecting to my network to wait for such a kill signal? Like say, a tracing bug? I know it'll be a pain for the thief but what about me? What a craptacular idea.
Yes, because this kind of enterprise-level hardware management feature is targeted at you, the loner Slashdot basement dweller...
The packaging system is very similar AFA what the end user sees
Ha ha, yeah right. apt-get is so much better than yum, they're not even worth comparing.
First, apt is *far* faster. I mean, really really fast compared to yum. Not to mention rock stable (I've gotten Yum into a condition where lock files were left behind, and unless you use strace, *you'd never know what was wrong*... yum just mysteriously hangs. Nor would you know to delete them unless you starting trawling Google).
Second, and this isn't apt so much as an artifact of superior packaging, I can trivially upgrade my Debian or Ubuntu box to the next version with a simple dist-upgrade (after altering the sources as necessary), something I don't think I've ever managed with a Redhat or Fedora machine.
As an aside, Debian/Ubuntu also seems to have far fewer issues with their package repos. After the compromise of the Fedora servers over the summer, I've seen nothing but problems with them, most notably blank mirrors.
I was thinking the same thing. I mean, come on, hypnosis reducing "mental chatter"? Herbal supplements? Please... talk about the usual, baseless pseudo-scientific bullshit.
Humans don't react well to massive doses of radiation in the form of energetic alpha, beta, and protons.
That's what an atmosphere is for. Even if the earth's magnetic field vanished today, we'd be fine, as the atmosphere works to scatter high-energy radiation. After all, during magnetic field inversions, it's not like all life on earth spontaneously went extinct.
1. The military is a huge evil system hell bent on massive deception and evil lies while also maintaining 2. The military is a bunch of clueless incompetents that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
I'm sorry, what about those two things is mutually exclusive? I think the Bush administration is generally hell bent on massive deception and evil lies (see: warrantless wiretapping, the "case" for the Iraq war, etc), while at the same time being a bunch of clueless incompetents (see: the way the Iraq war was prosecuted, the decision to pull out of Afghanistan, etc).
Our recent meltdown is due to regulations that encouraged bad loans.
And what regulation would that be, exactly? Oh, and if you say "CRA", you immediately fail on the grounds that you don't know wtf you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest, this just sounds like a 'no true Scotsman' argument. 'Love' is defined as only those parts of love which are positive, uplifting, and nuturative, and the potentially nasty baggage (possessiveness, obsession, etc) are wtritten off as something separate.
Except that love is defined, by our society, as "positive, uplifting, nuturative", etc. We as society *define* obsession, posessiveness, etc, as things separate and distinct from love. Therefore the No True Scotsman fallacy does not apply.
I live in a big city where there are fairly consistent patterns of behavior which you'd consider polite and civil (folks hold doors for each other, say excuse me when they bump into someone, offer subway seats to the elderly or infirm, etc). I don't think this is due so much to some hidden wellspring of love for our common man as much as a desire to keep things running smoothly
You're missing the point. Where did you learn those socialized behaviours from? Your family and friends. And why did your family and friends help to nuture and socialize you? Love.
That's my point. Love is at the very heart of our most basic social structure: the family (however you define it... nuclear, extended, etc). Everything else is built on that substrate.
a human is also an entity and a form of energy, in addition to the body mass and the heat it generates.
No, it's not.
physically it should have been impossible for 20 of them to combine and create exponentially higher impact on their environment.
I can't even describe how incredibly wrong and stupid this statement is. By this definition termites must have some sort of "higher energy" (ever seen an African termite nest?).
therefore, philosophically, according to conservation of energy
Good Christ, man. Now you're going to try to co-opt the laws of conservation of energy, despite clearly having no idea what you're talking about? Here, let me explain it to you:
The sun beams energy, in the form of radiation, to Earth.
Plants convert that radiation into chemical energy.
I eat that chemical energy.
I then expend said chemical energy welding a girder to a skyscraper.
Hey, look at that, I'm increasing the order of my local universe by utilizing energy provided to me by the sun. No magic needed.
this tells that when a human complex dies, there is some other form of energy released that equals everything that human complex did in his life minus his body mass and heat.
And that tells me that you're so desperate to believe that you'll survive after you're dead that you'll make up basically anything. You know, like Jesus did.
Let me make this simple: when you die, you're dead. Your body decomposes, and the various compounds that make up your corpse enter the food chain. That's it. So make the best of this life. It's the only one you get, and once it's done, it's *done*.
Sure, love is a powerful force that we generally consider "good", but love can be quite dark and twisted at times,
Yeah, at which point, it ain't love anymore. At best it's infatuation. More likely, it's obsession. But it sure ain't love.
Why does love get touted around on a pedestal like it's some miracle thing?
Because love is what ties people together. It binds mother to child, husband to wife, friend to friend. It's a constructive, creative force, and it's ultimately the foundation human society is built upon.
'course, I'm not sure I really understood any of this until I met my wife. Love isn't what you think it is when you're experiencing a high school infatuation.
Well, when your loved one dies and you start seeing things, take a picture. Because until I see hard evidence, I think it's safe to say that misfiring brain cells are a *far* more likely explanation for this particular phenomenon.
but I don't understand the difference between "increase in value of an individual unit of currency" and "a decrease of the purchase price of goods" or why the former is deflation and the later isn't.
Because in this very specific case, what we actually have is the currency of another economy declining. So, here in Canada, the value of the Canadian dollar *isn't* actually increasing in value. The Canadian money supply is not coming down, there aren't fewer dollars circulating relative to the size of the economy (which is what real deflation is). What we have is a case of *some* goods declining in value because the US economy is in the toilet. But many other goods, such as houses, commodities, and others, are not affected, and so you don't have a deflationary scenario.
In a deflationary scenario, the value of *all* goods decreases (in absolute currency units) as the money supply contracts (relative to the size of the economy). And as that happens, all those other nasty things start kicking in. The values of homes and other assets decline, while the size of the debt used to purchase them does not. There's pressure to decrease wages, which can hurt small businesses. And as wages decline, people's ability to pay their debts, which haven't gone down, declines along with it. It's a nasty cycle, and definitely *much* worse than inflation.
'So the fact that a dollar will buy way more than it did a month ago doesn't mean "the increase in value of an individual unit of currency"?'
No, it doesn't. In a truly deflationary scenario, the fact that your "dollar" can buy more than it did a month ago is consequence of the dollar increasing in value, not the other way 'round.
From a more technical standpoint, deflation is a reduction in the total money supply. What that means is there are fewer units of currency circulating in the economy, which means each individual unit of currency is ultimately worth more.
What *you* saw wasn't true deflation, ie a reduction in the money supply. It was a decrease in cost of some imported goods thanks to a reduced foreign currency value. But the value of *your* currency wasn't actually increasing. It's a very different thing, and I find it baffling that you can't see that.
*Everyone* has choices.
Uhuh. So, tell me, what does the local carpenter do when the local industry tanks thanks to the credit bubble bursting? Let's see, they could:
1) Educate themselves in a different field. Problem: They can't get a student loan because the banks aren't giving out credit. Besides which, they can't afford to take time off to re-educate because they're busy, you know... surviving.
2) Move. Sorry, no money == no mobility. Besides, the industry is tanking nation-wide.
3) Get a different job. Ah, but there aren't any. The few that do exist pay worse, possibly so much worse that they can no longer support themselves.
So, got any other ideas?, smart guy?
We all were born broke.
Uhh, no. Most people are born into a family that has some sort of income or wealth. Some a *lot* more than others. Those that aren't are relegated to the gutters of society because, despite what the hilariously deluded Libertarians would tell us, most people can not, in fact, pull themselves up "by their own bootstraps". 'course, your average Slashdotter doesn't really get this because they've never actually left their parent's comfy basement (metaphorically speaking).
People who lose thier jobs have no business blaming Washington (or London, or wherever) if thier employer or your entire industry went belly up and they didn't make the right choices that result in thier continued employment... or *employability*... somewhere else.
Uhh... who said anything about blaming Washington?
Look, your original post was the absolutely ridiculous claim that you "refuse to participate in any recession", then suggesting that everyone else should just do the same. Sorry bub, that's just naive. *Really* naive.
I stand a far, FAR greater chance of being put out in the street.
Ha ha ha. Yeah, right. Tell that to your local carpenter or welder.
That's not deflation. The fact you believe it is suggests to me that you don't really know what you're talking about.
Deflation is the increase in value of an individual unit of currency, *not* a decrease of the purchase price of goods. The latter is simply a secondary effect resulting from the former.
An increase in the value of currency is bad over the long term because:
1) It encourages investors to invest in currency instead of things that generate economic growth (homes, small businesses, etc).
2) It hurts borrowers because the amount of debt for a given loan *increases* during deflation, as the value of an individual dollar goes up, while the absolute value, in terms of units of currency, of loans remain fixed. This discourages leveraging, which, in proper ratios, is a very good thing for the economy (think home and small business loans).
3) Wage inelasticity means that employers are harmed because they cannot reduce wages to compensate for deflation (people don't like seeing their wages go down), while being forced to reduce the price of their goods or services.
I'm sure there are many other issues, but these are just the first couple that come to mind.
Says the guy on a tech forum who probably has some sort of higher degree or otherwise advanced and specialized skillset. Meanwhile, the average Joe out there faces the real possibility of layoffs, and with a contracting job market, long-term unemployment on the horizon.
*You* may not choose to participate in the recession, but there are millions who will likely have no choice in the matter.
All the gold that will ever exist on earth is already here, and we find a little more every year.
And thus it places a hard cap on the size of your economy, and creates a real possibility of deflation, which is far *far* worse than inflation. Yay gold standard!
Faith that an industry that produces nothing and adds no value can be the most significant industry nonetheless and make EVERYTHING else secondary. It is not the first time.
Producing nothing of value? What? *If* the ratings agencies had done their job properly, and *if* we had regulation to ensure transparency and to control the ridiculously complex instruments that were traded, and *if* people didn't leverage up to ridiculous levels, and *if* people didn't have this silly notion that property values go up monotonically, the mortgage-backed and other derivatives securities markets were/are a *very good thing*. It brought cheap money to people so they could buy homes, invest in small businesses, and any number of other things, thus injecting cash straight into the economy, right at the consumer level. In essence, it provided a path from investors to the little guy. It's an excellent idea!
Assuming, of course, that regulation was there to ensure that everything was on the level. Unfortunately, the Greenspans of the world figured that was a bad idea.
The 3 law are the condition sine qua non, the fundament of the stories. Take I, robot, the 3 laws are not essential, and actually are just an add-on, a flavor. Which is why it is a treason of Asimov writing and story.
No, the *four* (4) laws are key to the story working. The entire reason the robots "rebel" is because, as interpreted by the writers of the film, the zeroeth law requires the robots protect humanity for it's own good. Without the four laws, the entire movie would fall apart, as there would be no reason for there to be a conflict between humanity and the robots.
Yeah, but you have to look at the line in context. Rorshach is railing against a city he believes has becoming unredeemably corrupt. That the people there are nothing more than "whores and politicians", "liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers". And so when they alter the quote to be about "the world", I don't think it substantively changes the meaning of the monologue, while it does make it a little more "trailer-friendly", and more importantly, rating-friendly (it may be that using the word "whore" would limit the movies they could play the trailer in).
So, while I don't have incredibly high hopes just yet, I'm withholding judgment until I've seen it.
A "real" language has been classically defined to mean "a language which can compile itself."
Complete and total bullshit. If you deny that Python and Perl "compile" themselves, than neither do Lisp or Smalltalk, two of the fundamental pillars of modern programming language pedigree. And I don't think anyone familiar with those languages would claim they aren't "real".
If you then concede that dynamically byte-compiled languages like Lisp, Smalltalk, Java, and C#, among others, qualify as "real" programming languages based on some reinterpretation of your "definition", then any dynamic Javascript compiler (like, say, V8) automatically promotes Javascript to a "real" language. Sounds like a pretty dubious definition to me.
Honestly, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, do you?
And why, exactly, isn't javascript a good language? I mean, it has it's warts that need mending, specifically namespaces and an import mechanism of some kind. Certainly, some people object to it being prototype-based, or that it's weakly typed, but those are just a matter of taste. But aside from those things, what's wrong with JS?
A "horrible" confluence of hacks that is fast, low-level, reliable, and object oriented and gives the programmer full access to everything?
You also forgot horribly complicated, inconsistent, and full of corners that can hang a programmer if they're not aware of them.
So you prefer slow, high-level, unreliable, procedural-based languages that give you little to no access to the underlying infrastructure?
Yeah, you got me. All alternatives to C++ are necessarily all of these things, and therefore that's what I look for in a language. How very clever of you.
Or is it just that they were never schooled in the old temple and given a proper appreciation of a real language like C++?
No offense, buddy, but anyone who looks to C++ as a general model for a "real" programming language needs to be taken out back and shot. C++ is a horrible confluence of hacks designed to address it's very specific design goals (a fast, system-level, strongly-typed, object-oriented programming language that gives the developer supreme control over what features are used), and I don't know any serious programmer who claims otherwise. But there are *many* programming languages out there *far* superior in their own domains, and Javascript is absolutely among them.
In short, yes, you're jaded, old, and behind the times. Open your mind. A world does, in fact, exist outside of systems-level application development.
Yum does have some pros over apt but they sure aren't speed and efficiency.
Good god, like what? I haven't found *anything* yum does better than apt.
So you're telling me there will be a GSM module in the laptop that is constantly connecting to my network to wait for such a kill signal? Like say, a tracing bug? I know it'll be a pain for the thief but what about me? What a craptacular idea.
Yes, because this kind of enterprise-level hardware management feature is targeted at you, the loner Slashdot basement dweller...
The packaging system is very similar AFA what the end user sees
Ha ha, yeah right. apt-get is so much better than yum, they're not even worth comparing.
First, apt is *far* faster. I mean, really really fast compared to yum. Not to mention rock stable (I've gotten Yum into a condition where lock files were left behind, and unless you use strace, *you'd never know what was wrong*... yum just mysteriously hangs. Nor would you know to delete them unless you starting trawling Google).
Second, and this isn't apt so much as an artifact of superior packaging, I can trivially upgrade my Debian or Ubuntu box to the next version with a simple dist-upgrade (after altering the sources as necessary), something I don't think I've ever managed with a Redhat or Fedora machine.
As an aside, Debian/Ubuntu also seems to have far fewer issues with their package repos. After the compromise of the Fedora servers over the summer, I've seen nothing but problems with them, most notably blank mirrors.
I was thinking the same thing. I mean, come on, hypnosis reducing "mental chatter"? Herbal supplements? Please... talk about the usual, baseless pseudo-scientific bullshit.
And yet, it gets modded up. Go figure.
Incidentally, here's a citation to support my assertion.
Humans don't react well to massive doses of radiation in the form of energetic alpha, beta, and protons.
That's what an atmosphere is for. Even if the earth's magnetic field vanished today, we'd be fine, as the atmosphere works to scatter high-energy radiation. After all, during magnetic field inversions, it's not like all life on earth spontaneously went extinct.
1. The military is a huge evil system hell bent on massive deception and evil lies while also maintaining 2. The military is a bunch of clueless incompetents that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
I'm sorry, what about those two things is mutually exclusive? I think the Bush administration is generally hell bent on massive deception and evil lies (see: warrantless wiretapping, the "case" for the Iraq war, etc), while at the same time being a bunch of clueless incompetents (see: the way the Iraq war was prosecuted, the decision to pull out of Afghanistan, etc).
Our recent meltdown is due to regulations that encouraged bad loans.
And what regulation would that be, exactly? Oh, and if you say "CRA", you immediately fail on the grounds that you don't know wtf you're talking about.