On the one hand, Mr. Griffin announces that, due to budget constraints, a number of very important scientific missions are being delayed or, worse, possibly outright abandoned (including the supposed Hubble successor, the JWST).
On the other hand, he announces funding for trips to the Moon and Mars, which, frankly, have dubious scientific value, will cost billions upon billions of dollars, will likely never get off the ground (due to ever-looming safety concerns), but will generate all kinds of lovely PR.
Well, I guess we know where NASA's priorities now lie...
Perhaps you should ponder the concept of "inflation" a bit. To help you out, try reading this. Using the CPI base multiplier of 10, that car would cost, in today's dollars, $31384.90. Of course, in the article, they claim this may drastically low-ball the value, and at the high end, a multiplier of something like 32.4 might be more reasonable, meaning Henry Ford's Model T might cost nearly $100,000 today.
You're using evidence of how fast bugs get fixed to show how easy they are to find. Not buying it.
No, I'm not. Let's review what I posted:
Wrong. The phrase "all bug are shallow" simply means that, with enough eyes, *someone* will be able to find the solution to any given bug fairly quickly. i.e., to them, the bug will be "shallow". And this seems to be quite true, given the rate at which bugs in Firefox and other open source products are fixed (quite often within 24 hours). ESR's assertion makes *no* claims regarding the bug *density* of a given open source product.
Now, tell me, where in that text did I make *any* mention of the rate at which bugs are *found*? Oh, wait, I *didn't*.
I am of the opinion that Harrison Ford has been one of the best actors recent movies have seen
*snicker* You need to watch more movies.:) Seriously, Ford has, what, two, maybe three characters, tops? We have the Han Solo-like character (Solo, Indy, character in Six Days Seven Nights, etc, etc), we have the more serious action character (The Fugitive, Clear and Present Danger, Blade Runner (sort of)), and... err, that's it, aside from the occasional oddball role.
Honestly, Ford doesn't hold a candle to giants like, say, Johnny Depp. Sure, Ford's entertaining to watch (usually), but "best actor of recent movies"... I think not.
1. Linus didn't say that, Raymond did. 2. By your own analysis, all famous open-source projects should be bug-free, right? Like Firefox, right?
Wrong. The phrase "all bug are shallow" simply means that, with enough eyes, *someone* will be able to find the solution to any given bug fairly quickly. i.e., to them, the bug will be "shallow". And this seems to be quite true, given the rate at which bugs in Firefox and other open source products are fixed (quite often within 24 hours). ESR's assertion makes *no* claims regarding the bug *density* of a given open source product.
Umm... dude, that makes *no* sense. There are certainly building codes that place a lower limit on the spacing between recepticles and the number of recepticles per circuit, but I have a hard time believing there are rules which *require* you to have recepticles installed.
He answers that very question in the article: his complaint is about the Win*Tel* architecture, ie the combination of Windows on Intel hardware. If you read the article (I know, what a crazy idea!), you'll note a number of his gripes are with the Intel hardware platform itself (varying BIOSs, poor RAM and HDs).
So, let me get this straight. The article submitter provides a link to the "article". In the summary, the submitter duplicates, word for word, the complete text of said linked article. When one clicks on the provided link, one discovers that *that* article is just a summary, and points to *another* article. Friggin' brilliant...
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a spammer, filling articles with posts from unrelated articles... kinda clever, really... it's a pretty good way to get around the lameness filter, and it's *really* annoying.
Bullshit. If that's considered a dumb mistake, then 30%-50% of college students make the same mistake all the time.
Hell, ever see the movie "Old School"? It depicts a middle-aged guy having sex with a high school student whom he thought was in college. According to the GP, that dude should be listed in a sex offenders registry! Gotta love the criminal "justice" system...
Another interesting question is, how far does this extend to other agencies? Is DARPA, for example, subject to "Ear Marks"? And why the heck hasn't someone started screaming bloody murder about this? It's pretty obvious is pure corruption, through and through. Worse yet, it's pure *institutionalized* corruption.
Correlation != causation, and a high correlation doesn't change that. It's just as likely that very poor countries, which are less likely to be a democracies (democracies require an educated, preferably not-starving population), breed terrorists due to increased civil unrest. Choosing to blow the crap out of them just leads to more civil unrest and increased poverty, meaning *more* terrorism, not less. Worse, you galvanize them against a single enemy. Sure sounds like a winning strategy to me. Or not.
I bought the same card and it's very easy to tell the difference between revisions. The latest version of the card (revision 4) which contains the RT2500 chipset is a half-height PCI card, unlike the previous revisions which were full-height.
It's simple. Watch the new series and remember that it's *not* the original at all. Not even remotely. About the only thing they kept was the basic plotlines. Trust me, you'll be rewarded for the effort.
I don't think that confrontation is coming anytime soon.
Muahaha! That's what's so brilliant! We've just been biding our time until the right moment to strike presents itself! But soon, sooooon, we will rush down like the proverbial Mongol hoard we are and destroy you with our... our... our submarine and, err, carribou! And then, just when you think you've had enough, we'll apologize profusely and go home. He he he, the perfect plan!
Here's a little bit of a news flash: people hate us because we're on top of the world militarily, economically, and politically. It's envy, pure and simple.
...
The U.S. may not be perfect, but we're a damned sight better than anything else that's come into being on this blue and green ball.
Nope. Wrong. People dislike you because you have the arrogance to believe that bullshit.
Re:Is Freenet doomed to failure by design?
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 1
Is it a sane thing to do?
a) Suicide bombers and their ilk are but a subset of people who are labelled "terrorists". Be more specific.
b) Regarding suicide bombers specifically, it *really* depends on how you define "sane", now doesn't it? Is a martyr who dies for their beliefs "insane"? Because that is, technically, what those types of terrorists are, like it or not.
Child pornography is about the rights of a minor being trampled on by another person (a minor cannot consent to sex).
Nooo... *production* of child pornography is about the rights of a minor being trampled on by another person. The pornography itself is merely a record of the event.
This is different from the "shouting 'fire'" example because, in that case, the actual act of expression, the shouting itself, is what causes damage. Put another way, it's an excellent example of balance of harm: we are willing to limit a person's right to free speech (and thus "harm" them, in a loose sense) in order to protect others from being physically injured by a panicked mob.
Child porn is not remotely the same. The expression (if you want to use that word) isn't what causes the damage. It's the creation of the work in the first place.
Now, does that mean I think Child Porn is a-okay? No, of course not! However, I think the focus on distributors and collectors is highly misguided. People should be going after the producers. The people who are *actually* harming children.
The current approach, OTOH, seems focused on trying to curb demand (and to get juicy soundbites on the news), but I would contend that that approach will be about as successful as Three Strikes laws for drug users.
Slashdot Mirror
On the one hand, Mr. Griffin announces that, due to budget constraints, a number of very important scientific missions are being delayed or, worse, possibly outright abandoned (including the supposed Hubble successor, the JWST).
On the other hand, he announces funding for trips to the Moon and Mars, which, frankly, have dubious scientific value, will cost billions upon billions of dollars, will likely never get off the ground (due to ever-looming safety concerns), but will generate all kinds of lovely PR.
Well, I guess we know where NASA's priorities now lie...
From the memory stick... which requires the code to be... *signed*. Can we say "chicken and egg"?
And as for your "dns trickery", there is, to my knowledge, absolutely no evidence that you can run code on the PSP that way.
And you flash it... how, exactly?
And in response to both replies to my post... *sigh* Me fail English, apparently...
Well, until you find a way to stop people from choosing to be total fucktards, I'll live with a technology that could at least reduce the problem.
Perhaps you should ponder the concept of "inflation" a bit. To help you out, try reading this. Using the CPI base multiplier of 10, that car would cost, in today's dollars, $31384.90. Of course, in the article, they claim this may drastically low-ball the value, and at the high end, a multiplier of something like 32.4 might be more reasonable, meaning Henry Ford's Model T might cost nearly $100,000 today.
You're using evidence of how fast bugs get fixed to show how easy they are to find. Not buying it.
No, I'm not. Let's review what I posted:
Wrong. The phrase "all bug are shallow" simply means that, with enough eyes, *someone* will be able to find the solution to any given bug fairly quickly. i.e., to them, the bug will be "shallow". And this seems to be quite true, given the rate at which bugs in Firefox and other open source products are fixed (quite often within 24 hours). ESR's assertion makes *no* claims regarding the bug *density* of a given open source product.
Now, tell me, where in that text did I make *any* mention of the rate at which bugs are *found*? Oh, wait, I *didn't*.
I am of the opinion that Harrison Ford has been one of the best actors recent movies have seen
:) Seriously, Ford has, what, two, maybe three characters, tops? We have the Han Solo-like character (Solo, Indy, character in Six Days Seven Nights, etc, etc), we have the more serious action character (The Fugitive, Clear and Present Danger, Blade Runner (sort of)), and... err, that's it, aside from the occasional oddball role.
*snicker* You need to watch more movies.
Honestly, Ford doesn't hold a candle to giants like, say, Johnny Depp. Sure, Ford's entertaining to watch (usually), but "best actor of recent movies"... I think not.
1. Linus didn't say that, Raymond did. 2. By your own analysis, all famous open-source projects should be bug-free, right? Like Firefox, right?
Wrong. The phrase "all bug are shallow" simply means that, with enough eyes, *someone* will be able to find the solution to any given bug fairly quickly. i.e., to them, the bug will be "shallow". And this seems to be quite true, given the rate at which bugs in Firefox and other open source products are fixed (quite often within 24 hours). ESR's assertion makes *no* claims regarding the bug *density* of a given open source product.
Umm... dude, that makes *no* sense. There are certainly building codes that place a lower limit on the spacing between recepticles and the number of recepticles per circuit, but I have a hard time believing there are rules which *require* you to have recepticles installed.
He answers that very question in the article: his complaint is about the Win*Tel* architecture, ie the combination of Windows on Intel hardware. If you read the article (I know, what a crazy idea!), you'll note a number of his gripes are with the Intel hardware platform itself (varying BIOSs, poor RAM and HDs).
So, let me get this straight. The article submitter provides a link to the "article". In the summary, the submitter duplicates, word for word, the complete text of said linked article. When one clicks on the provided link, one discovers that *that* article is just a summary, and points to *another* article. Friggin' brilliant...
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a spammer, filling articles with posts from unrelated articles... kinda clever, really... it's a pretty good way to get around the lameness filter, and it's *really* annoying.
Bullshit. If that's considered a dumb mistake, then 30%-50% of college students make the same mistake all the time.
Hell, ever see the movie "Old School"? It depicts a middle-aged guy having sex with a high school student whom he thought was in college. According to the GP, that dude should be listed in a sex offenders registry! Gotta love the criminal "justice" system...
Oh, okay, I see. You want to punish the 80% of reformed criminals for life because the other 20% are likely to re-offend. Yes, that's much better.
Another interesting question is, how far does this extend to other agencies? Is DARPA, for example, subject to "Ear Marks"? And why the heck hasn't someone started screaming bloody murder about this? It's pretty obvious is pure corruption, through and through. Worse yet, it's pure *institutionalized* corruption.
Correlation != causation, and a high correlation doesn't change that. It's just as likely that very poor countries, which are less likely to be a democracies (democracies require an educated, preferably not-starving population), breed terrorists due to increased civil unrest. Choosing to blow the crap out of them just leads to more civil unrest and increased poverty, meaning *more* terrorism, not less. Worse, you galvanize them against a single enemy. Sure sounds like a winning strategy to me. Or not.
I bought the same card and it's very easy to tell the difference between revisions. The latest version of the card (revision 4) which contains the RT2500 chipset is a half-height PCI card, unlike the previous revisions which were full-height.
It's simple. Watch the new series and remember that it's *not* the original at all. Not even remotely. About the only thing they kept was the basic plotlines. Trust me, you'll be rewarded for the effort.
they already tried that in springfield.
http://www.springfield.com/episode_guide/0625.htm
[ Reply to This ]
Holy shit! That's one *craaaazy* coincidence!
Dude, I'm Canadian. There's a reason I wrote in the first person. :)
I don't think that confrontation is coming anytime soon.
Muahaha! That's what's so brilliant! We've just been biding our time until the right moment to strike presents itself! But soon, sooooon, we will rush down like the proverbial Mongol hoard we are and destroy you with our... our... our submarine and, err, carribou! And then, just when you think you've had enough, we'll apologize profusely and go home. He he he, the perfect plan!
The U.S. may not be perfect, but we're a damned sight better than anything else that's come into being on this blue and green ball.
Nope. Wrong. People dislike you because you have the arrogance to believe that bullshit.
Is it a sane thing to do?
a) Suicide bombers and their ilk are but a subset of people who are labelled "terrorists". Be more specific.
b) Regarding suicide bombers specifically, it *really* depends on how you define "sane", now doesn't it? Is a martyr who dies for their beliefs "insane"? Because that is, technically, what those types of terrorists are, like it or not.
Child pornography is about the rights of a minor being trampled on by another person (a minor cannot consent to sex).
Nooo... *production* of child pornography is about the rights of a minor being trampled on by another person. The pornography itself is merely a record of the event.
This is different from the "shouting 'fire'" example because, in that case, the actual act of expression, the shouting itself, is what causes damage. Put another way, it's an excellent example of balance of harm: we are willing to limit a person's right to free speech (and thus "harm" them, in a loose sense) in order to protect others from being physically injured by a panicked mob.
Child porn is not remotely the same. The expression (if you want to use that word) isn't what causes the damage. It's the creation of the work in the first place.
Now, does that mean I think Child Porn is a-okay? No, of course not! However, I think the focus on distributors and collectors is highly misguided. People should be going after the producers. The people who are *actually* harming children.
The current approach, OTOH, seems focused on trying to curb demand (and to get juicy soundbites on the news), but I would contend that that approach will be about as successful as Three Strikes laws for drug users.