> I just made RH9/8/7.3 RPMS since RH hasn't released any yet...
You can get RH9 RPMs from a mirror at http://www.openssh.com/portable.html, and presumably kits for other non-BSD systems as well. They don't have RPMs for older RH out (at least not on the mirror I looked at), but they do have the SRPMs if you want to build your own.
> Overall the results were surprising, although perhaps unexciting, in showing that C# (and to a less extent Java) is, to a good degree, on a par in efficiency terms with its older and (presumed to be) more efficient counterparts C and C++ at least as far as the basic language features compared in this analysis are concerned
Could we have a few more weasel-words in that sentence, please?
> No overt attack neccesary; he would flip a switch, sit back and look forward to his 70 virgins...
And the joke's on him, because the 70 virgins are male gorillas that never got any in their whole life since they weren't the alpha male of their pack.
> I want to see some conservatives comment now on how Republicans are "conservative". Republicans want even bigger government than the Democrats. I am tired of this, everytime I read the news paper or watch TV George Bush is asking for more money for stupid shit.
You are on the virge of enlightenment: the anti-big-government, anti-careless-spending rhetoric isn't associated with a political view, it's associated with being the party out of power.
> Hundreds of billions for building schools and hospitals in Iraq, Billions for Africa
Since the current Administration is dead-set against spending your tax dollars for the same damn things here at home, you would do well to ask what he and his supporters think they are buying with all that spending.
> I cant understand the logic of these Republicans, they seem to be far from conservative
IMO, "conservative" and "liberal" aren't very solid concepts, and certainly don't describe the differences between Republicans and Democrats very well. E.g., if I want to 'conserve' our traditional 'liberties', am I a conservative or a liberal?
> Republicans seem to want Global Government which scares the shit out of me far more than the big US gov democrats.
These days the Republican party is a big bed full of strange bedfellows. Principally the Three 2-R's : the too-rich, the too-religious, and the too-right. They don't really have many interests in common, but they don't have too many interests in conflict either, so the party can cater to them all simultaneously. (And golly gee, look who the party has catered to for the past 2-1/2 years.)
But what you're referring to is a pretty small constituentcy, the neocons. They seem to come in several flavors, but the one of concern here is the Wolfowitz clique at the Pentagon (n.b. - civilians, not the military), who have a self-serving idealism that says that the world would be a better place under a "benevolent" hegemony by the USA. These are the scariest of the lot right now, since they're going to get us all killed in WWIII if Iraq doesn't embarass them out of power. (They existed at least as far back as the previous Bush Administration, but they didn't have much actual influence on the governance of the country until 911 gave them a chance to press their extremist views on a feeble-minded President who had surrounded him with advisors from the oil industry... a dangerous combination when the Middle East is the topic.)
Some slight good news is that there is a growing falling out between the neocons and the supply-siders. Sadly I didn't bookmark it, but someone - Slate, IIRC - recently ran a story about the flame war heating up between two groups of conservative editorialists, one that thinks intervention in Iraq is the ultimate good; the other beginning to think it evil to the tune of $87 billion...
FWIW, I read somewhere that one legislator suggested dismissal of the neocons as a pre-req for signing off on the $87 billion. It looks as though this particular brand of extremist is rapidly losing face, and I wouldn't be surprized if they are sacrificed on the alter of public opinion as the '04 campaign heats up and it becomes easier to start looking for someone to blame than to maintain the pretense that everything is rosy. But we certainly do need to run them out of Washington in a hurry, so we can get started cleaning up the mess they made.
It occurs to me that if we can get a Democratic President and substantially Democratic Congress, we may be able to get Republican legistators to turn against the "patriot" act as a manifestation of the bug gum'mit they so heartedly despised when they were out of power, and will surely despise again next time they're out.
> I try not to be/think "partisan". But the truth is, the best possible chance Liberty has of making a comeback is (just about) anything non-Republican. The best possible chance of getting any non-Republican power back is in the hands of the Democrats! No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!
I agree with your sentiment, but only reservedly: if you think back to the congressional votes on the "patriot" act and the war, you have to conclude that the Democrats - with a few noble exceptions - are only going to stand up to what's going on if there's a political advantage to doing so, or a political cost to not doing so. Most of them, I suspect, would be all to happy to have these same tools in their hands.
If you vote in the Democratic primary for this kind of reason, make sure you vote for someone who spoke out against things when it was a political liability to do so, not one of the windsocks that changes with the weather.
Sadly, some of the far-right nutcases have a better track record on this than the crowds of Democrats do.
> I guess you have to be smart to write science fiction, but attributing lower sales to the fact that people like other sci-fi/fantasy titles better is sheer genius.
Maybe the RIAA should hire him as a consultant.
Re: Differnet times for a different world
on
Security Versus Science
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
> Sept. 11 changed everyone's PERCEPTION of the threat of terrorism, including Bush, as you pointed out. This was a change for the better as it's more in line with reality. As you point out, terrorism existed before 9/11. We didn't take it seriously enough before 9/11, however.
Arguably we've gone from underperceiving terrorism to overperceiving it.
Yeah, 9/11 was bad, but how many people have died in car wrecks since then, and how much do your hear about that on the news?
Or from a less parochial perspective, how many people in the world have died of AIDS or died in the various slaughters that have been running in Africa?
> There is a real question of if the open borders policy has really helped US science in a meaningful way from the 20's-50's the US had a fairly strict immigration policy and quite a bit of science happened in the US. Right now the US has a serious problem of underutilizatin of native US technical/scientific talent.
I think the reason US graduate schools are packed with foreign technical/scientific talent is that the native technical/scientific talent isn't competing for the spaces. (When one of my Anglo-American friends applied to grad school in CS another friend teased him about qualifying for a minority scholarship.)
I'll let you construct your own sociological theories as to why this situation might exist.
> Lets not forget the biggest problem with open source software. It directly relates to the high unemployment rate currently being experienced in the tech sector. Programmers by the millions are unemployed because communists are undermining the great American capitalist economy by GIVING their software away. How do you expect to get work as a programmer when some guy next door is giving away the software for free? It's outright piracy and should be banned in the United States.
The problem with your fantasy is that if not for FOSS the world market would have almost completely converged on Microsoft products by now, and there wouldn't be any programming jobs anyway unless you happened to land a job with Microsoft.
And it's not like they'd need a lot of programmers once the competition was completely crushed, either.
[Actually there will always be a need for people to program up special-purpose systems that can't be bought off the shelf or downloaded for the net, and those jobs will be there whether FOSS is available for free or not.]
> Never mind a secure OS, I think these electronic engineers sound like very useful devices. Is there a review of one anywhere? How much do they cost? Do they run Linux?
Yeah, I have an old mechanical engineer, and I think it's about time to upgrade to a modern electronic one in order to reduce the maintenance costs.
Slashdot Mirror
> Meaning that SCOSource received no revenue whatsoever outside of those two. Hopefully it'll stay that way after they start sending invoices out.
Invoice? I thought they had sent me some commemorative toilet paper!
> Many, particularly those in the open source community, dispute the allegations of infringement that we have made.
Maybe you should consider showing us some EVIDENCE, fuckwits.
> I just made RH9/8/7.3 RPMS since RH hasn't released any yet...
You can get RH9 RPMs from a mirror at http://www.openssh.com/portable.html, and presumably kits for other non-BSD systems as well. They don't have RPMs for older RH out (at least not on the mirror I looked at), but they do have the SRPMs if you want to build your own.
> Overall the results were surprising, although perhaps unexciting, in showing that C# (and to a less extent Java) is, to a good degree, on a par in efficiency terms with its older and (presumed to be) more efficient counterparts C and C++ at least as far as the basic language features compared in this analysis are concerned
Could we have a few more weasel-words in that sentence, please?
Given how many copies of this I've gotten in my mailbox over the weekend, I suppose we should classify it as a meatspace virus.
Gods, I'm glad there's a humongous bureaucracy ready to step in and clean up the internet.
What's the plan, prosecute more teenagers and distribute their allowances between the multi-billion-dollar claimants?
> Just a little FYI, when you have to explain a joke, it is usually not funny.
You expect far to much for a Monday. The jokes won't really get funny until Thursday or so, but we still need to do our warm-ups.
> > > Is there any college in the U.S. with 70 virgins?
> > Yes, but out of politeness we call them "engineering students" instead of "virgins".
> and once you factor in how many of them are actually female; the stats look pretty sad.
Yes, but that's part of the joke. When signing up for "virgins", be sure to read the fine print!
Caveat wankor, kind of thing.
I thought we had solved this problem with the "in-flight reboot" technology.
> No overt attack neccesary; he would flip a switch, sit back and look forward to his 70 virgins...
And the joke's on him, because the 70 virgins are male gorillas that never got any in their whole life since they weren't the alpha male of their pack.
Eternity can be a long, long time.
> Is there any college in the U.S. with 70 virgins?
Yes, but out of politeness we call them "engineering students" instead of "virgins".
> Remember, in the US 'liberal media' is said with quotes.
It needs a lot more quotes than you used!
> I want to see some conservatives comment now on how Republicans are "conservative". Republicans want even bigger government than the Democrats. I am tired of this, everytime I read the news paper or watch TV George Bush is asking for more money for stupid shit.
You are on the virge of enlightenment: the anti-big-government, anti-careless-spending rhetoric isn't associated with a political view, it's associated with being the party out of power.
> Hundreds of billions for building schools and hospitals in Iraq, Billions for Africa
Since the current Administration is dead-set against spending your tax dollars for the same damn things here at home, you would do well to ask what he and his supporters think they are buying with all that spending.
> I cant understand the logic of these Republicans, they seem to be far from conservative
IMO, "conservative" and "liberal" aren't very solid concepts, and certainly don't describe the differences between Republicans and Democrats very well. E.g., if I want to 'conserve' our traditional 'liberties', am I a conservative or a liberal?
> Republicans seem to want Global Government which scares the shit out of me far more than the big US gov democrats.
These days the Republican party is a big bed full of strange bedfellows. Principally the Three 2-R's : the too-rich, the too-religious, and the too-right. They don't really have many interests in common, but they don't have too many interests in conflict either, so the party can cater to them all simultaneously. (And golly gee, look who the party has catered to for the past 2-1/2 years.)
But what you're referring to is a pretty small constituentcy, the neocons. They seem to come in several flavors, but the one of concern here is the Wolfowitz clique at the Pentagon (n.b. - civilians, not the military), who have a self-serving idealism that says that the world would be a better place under a "benevolent" hegemony by the USA. These are the scariest of the lot right now, since they're going to get us all killed in WWIII if Iraq doesn't embarass them out of power. (They existed at least as far back as the previous Bush Administration, but they didn't have much actual influence on the governance of the country until 911 gave them a chance to press their extremist views on a feeble-minded President who had surrounded him with advisors from the oil industry... a dangerous combination when the Middle East is the topic.)
Some slight good news is that there is a growing falling out between the neocons and the supply-siders. Sadly I didn't bookmark it, but someone - Slate, IIRC - recently ran a story about the flame war heating up between two groups of conservative editorialists, one that thinks intervention in Iraq is the ultimate good; the other beginning to think it evil to the tune of $87 billion...
FWIW, I read somewhere that one legislator suggested dismissal of the neocons as a pre-req for signing off on the $87 billion. It looks as though this particular brand of extremist is rapidly losing face, and I wouldn't be surprized if they are sacrificed on the alter of public opinion as the '04 campaign heats up and it becomes easier to start looking for someone to blame than to maintain the pretense that everything is rosy. But we certainly do need to run them out of Washington in a hurry, so we can get started cleaning up the mess they made.
It occurs to me that if we can get a Democratic President and substantially Democratic Congress, we may be able to get Republican legistators to turn against the "patriot" act as a manifestation of the bug gum'mit they so heartedly despised when they were out of power, and will surely despise again next time they're out.
> I try not to be/think "partisan". But the truth is, the best possible chance Liberty has of making a comeback is (just about) anything non-Republican. The best possible chance of getting any non-Republican power back is in the hands of the Democrats! No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!
I agree with your sentiment, but only reservedly: if you think back to the congressional votes on the "patriot" act and the war, you have to conclude that the Democrats - with a few noble exceptions - are only going to stand up to what's going on if there's a political advantage to doing so, or a political cost to not doing so. Most of them, I suspect, would be all to happy to have these same tools in their hands.
If you vote in the Democratic primary for this kind of reason, make sure you vote for someone who spoke out against things when it was a political liability to do so, not one of the windsocks that changes with the weather.
Sadly, some of the far-right nutcases have a better track record on this than the crowds of Democrats do.
>
Bigfoot is extinct? This strange furry couch I bought at the garage sale may be worth more than I thought!
> I, for one, welcome our new hyperpodiatric overlords!
'hyperpodiatric' = "pertaining to an over-foot-doctor"
I think you meant 'megapous'.
> Just in case someone doesn't understand this and wants to know more about what "shorting" a stock means:
It's kinda like shorting a sheet, except you do it with money.
4.b SCOX share prices jump all the way up to 18 after accidentally tipping their hand...
What is wrong with this picture?
> I guess you have to be smart to write science fiction, but attributing lower sales to the fact that people like other sci-fi/fantasy titles better is sheer genius.
Maybe the RIAA should hire him as a consultant.
> Sept. 11 changed everyone's PERCEPTION of the threat of terrorism, including Bush, as you pointed out. This was a change for the better as it's more in line with reality. As you point out, terrorism existed before 9/11. We didn't take it seriously enough before 9/11, however.
Arguably we've gone from underperceiving terrorism to overperceiving it.
Yeah, 9/11 was bad, but how many people have died in car wrecks since then, and how much do your hear about that on the news?
Or from a less parochial perspective, how many people in the world have died of AIDS or died in the various slaughters that have been running in Africa?
> There is a real question of if the open borders policy has really helped US science in a meaningful way from the 20's-50's the US had a fairly strict immigration policy and quite a bit of science happened in the US. Right now the US has a serious problem of underutilizatin of native US technical/scientific talent.
I think the reason US graduate schools are packed with foreign technical/scientific talent is that the native technical/scientific talent isn't competing for the spaces. (When one of my Anglo-American friends applied to grad school in CS another friend teased him about qualifying for a minority scholarship.)
I'll let you construct your own sociological theories as to why this situation might exist.
> Lets not forget the biggest problem with open source software. It directly relates to the high unemployment rate currently being experienced in the tech sector. Programmers by the millions are unemployed because communists are undermining the great American capitalist economy by GIVING their software away. How do you expect to get work as a programmer when some guy next door is giving away the software for free? It's outright piracy and should be banned in the United States.
The problem with your fantasy is that if not for FOSS the world market would have almost completely converged on Microsoft products by now, and there wouldn't be any programming jobs anyway unless you happened to land a job with Microsoft.
And it's not like they'd need a lot of programmers once the competition was completely crushed, either.
[Actually there will always be a need for people to program up special-purpose systems that can't be bought off the shelf or downloaded for the net, and those jobs will be there whether FOSS is available for free or not.]
> > That said, open-source is no panacea, and there are many areas where proprietary products are still far superior.
> I wish the zealots would at least concede that much before blasting the horrible , horrible, evil, closed, proprietary software.
OK, consider it conceded. Now can we please get on with the blasting?
> Never mind a secure OS, I think these electronic engineers sound like very useful devices. Is there a review of one anywhere? How much do they cost? Do they run Linux?
Yeah, I have an old mechanical engineer, and I think it's about time to upgrade to a modern electronic one in order to reduce the maintenance costs.
Send people to school on it? Perhaps I have misunderstood what "the September that never ended" refers to.