As for thinking about them, well it's generally not a good idea to concentrate too much on someone you're about to kill. The more you think about them the more real and human they become.
True about entire societies. The more evolved, the truer — one may even perish completely, when confronted by another, which manages to concentrate on the mission of killing the enemy, instead of "seeing his side".
you can simply revert your filesystem to where it was at any arbitrary point in time.
No, you can't. According to this example you need to issue an explicit "snapshot" command — I checked my facts before posting, as well as I could, anyway. There is no word yet on the maximum number of snapshots — they may well be limited to 20 as well.
What a major oopsie, I might add... I mean, you could've come up humbly with something "As far as I know, ext3cow is better, because it requires no explicit snapshot-taking". Then it would not have been such an embarassment to be wrong.
But you chose to use terms like "wankfest", "mouth before ears", etc... Fanboy indeed...
I can see the headlines already: "Swingers going to the heavens"
Yep, would be a fun, would not it? All those personal-illiberals drowning in their anger, while secretly wishing, they were up there themselves... But there'll be no such headlines, because the very term "swinger" would require an adult-rated explanation...
Astronauts' personal lives will not be detailed one way or the other.
BSD operating systems had filesystem snapshots functionality for several years now... Linux is catching up — in a usual Linux way with patches, which one has to collect from all over...
Or am I misreading the write-up and this new ext3cow thingy is much more than that?
Not *all* humans are heterosexual men, thankyouverymuch...
There were very few women in the military, when bromide was widely used — until fairly recently. Most men are heterosexual, and the "don't ask don't tell" policy is a very new one — until its introduction, homosexuals were promptly discharged.
These observations are US-centric, but a lot of other militaries treat(ed) homosexuals the same or even worse. USSR, for example, considered all homosexuality a crime — the incentive to suppress one's "deviant" urges was very strong in that country's massive military, much stronger, than bromide would provide.
The stuff is/was used in non-military situations too, BTW. For example, long-range merchant shippers would mix it into desserts served to the crew. I know for sure, Soviet merchant fleet used it... But those voyages are rarely longer than a few months, whereas the space missions being discussed might last years without calling to any port.
Put something in their tea. I believe they used bromide to suppress the sexual urges of soldiers during the first world war.
That only worked, because there weren't many females in close proximity. If you interact with them daily, no chemical will help much.
Personally, I think, they should pick swingers for the mission — there will be no reproductive sex on board, so the partners need no particular attachment to each other (as parents-to-be should have). Swingers, who change partners easily, supposedly, can enjoy the physical aspect of it without "drama"...
Finding capable astronauts, who are also into swinging, may be difficult, though...
For example I've got a shortcut to a file on C:\, which is 391 bytes actual size, 4096 bytes on the disk.
Hopefully, the filesystems, which can pack multiple short files into a block, will become more popular... ReiserFS does this, supposedly — I wonder, if anything else does...
The beauty of Flex / flash is that it's contained in it's own "cross platform" VM, making it totally independent of the browser. I would think that any tight integration into any browser would be a poor move for adobe/flex/flash.
What's so beautiful? Have we given up on the idea of "standards"? Where I am, having an implementation define the standard is considered rather ugly, if not flat-out wrong...
It is a mainstream rock band for God's sake, what next?
"Mainstream" rock bands don't usually release their songs for free. This one did, for whatever reasons, one of the reasons — by popular opinion, at least — being "to show our openness and appreciation for the fans". Well, this fan is offended, rather than pleased...
Didn't appear nice on your Lynx?
It did not appear nice in my Firefox-2.0.0.3. A 64-bit version... My primary objection was not even to their use of Flash per se, but to the gratuitous use of Flash. They did not use any of the features, that are only available with Flash. It is a static page. You click on a link, you download the files — that's all.
As far as I know, Garage Band is not GNU either.
I care not for the licensing — my beef is availability, or, rather, the lack of it. There is no Flash for 64-bit platforms, not even for Windows... An iPod can play "Garage Band", but I can't get the NIN's files onto mine, because their web-master (obviously one with stress on style, rather than utility) is of poor qualifications.
Governor McCreevy of NJ had already taken up the cause for stricter seatbelt laws before this happened; if he hadn't, I might not have repeated the "hypocrite" charge.
McCreevy — and his supporters/sympathizers — deserve the hypocrite charge on other merits. The man, who resigned in disgrace after nobody agreed to buy his attempts to portray his assigning a juicy "homeland security" contract (for which everyone renting a car in NJ is paying $5/day — per McCreevy's orders) as a "gay rights" issue, is now — I kid you not — an Ethics, Law, and Leadership professor...
He [Corzine -mi] was riding in the back seat, after all. It can be hard to tell how fast you're going if you aren't driving.
No, he was, actually, in the front seat — someone else (a woman) was in the back seat. He could not possibly not have seen, how fast they were going. The crash occured, because someone driving in front of them could not get out of the way quickly enough.
Not only is not "open", it is also remarkably stupid — the largely plain-text page (its background being a giant JPG) linked from the write-up is written entirely in Flash... There are not ringing bells and no blowing wistles — their web-master, apparently, knows only the single tool (hammer), and everything looks like a nail to him/her... Eeewwww..
You make bombastic claims, that you don't back up with any references. You also use incorrect terms:
seeing as the taxpayers have subsidized their infrastructure they now own to the tune of billions of dollars.
Where? How?
What net neutrality stops is them from charging people who are not their customers a fee for not waylaying any transit traffic from them that happens to cross their network (in violation of their peering agreements).
Violations of peering agreements are to be enforced in courts with contract law, not government regulations.
What net neutrality stops them from doing is looking at traffic they are paid by peers to have cross their network, and intentionally slowing down traffic from say, Google, so that Google searches are extra slow, because either Google (who is not their direct customer) did not pay extortion, or because MS paid more than Google.
Again, if that sabotage you are alleging is in violation of the terms of any agreement, the injured payer has the courts as the recourse. We don't need (Federal) government to intervene here any more, than in any other contract dispute.
If they decide not to impartially carry traffic, but instead to discriminate among different people sending and receiving, what benefit to society does it bring to continue providing them with special immunity to the laws?
The benefit is obvious — to allow them to exist. If they were to be charged with censoring content, they would fail and nobody would win.
The government highly subsidized the infrastructure from day one, provided special legal protections to ISPs, and allowed only two in most geographical areas to run lines in the public right of ways creating government enforced monopolies. (emphasis mine -mi)
I'd like to see evidence of the "high subsidies" — which, if applied equally to all don't violate free market principles much.
Legal protections don't violate free market principles, as long as, again, they apply equally to all.
Greek is not your strong point, is it? I'd like to see evidence of government-enforced duopolies. I think, you are confusing them with the (temporary) situation with cellular phone providers, who were, indeed, duopolies for some time (not anymore)
The american dream used to be work hard and become wealthy, now it is sit on your ass and become wealthy anyway. American ISPs need to find ways to make money by giving customers something they want, not by finding ways to get paid for not breaking things for people who are not even their customers.
Yada-yada. What are you, running for President or something? "Informative" my behind...
Do we not remember our origins with the ARPANET, a project nurtured in and entirely funded by America's favorite crypto-socialist organization, the Department of Defense?
We remember that perfectly well, but interpret it differently. The Internet is the result of a "spillover" of the dual-use technology. Developed by the DoD for itself, it turned out (or was wisely designed) to be usable by others. This was terrific and has since been matched only by GPS in popularity.
Mind you, ARPANET has paid only for the development of software and the standards — it did not pay for the pipes or other hardware, that today's socialists demand be upgraded.
Yours really is a non-argument here. I believe, you just wanted to see the words "crypto-socialist" posted.
It's not a question of arguing "the free market is failing" - the Internet's very existence is thanks to the government realizing "the market" had no way of getting where it wanted to be.
Creating and maintaining the standards (TCP/IP, 110V, HDTV) is perfectly within the government's domain. Utilizing those standards is up to the free market, which is what it did and continues to do.
I, as a user, don't care what Verizon wants; I want to pick which ones I'm using.
Verizon's walled garden will be broken up by the free market, just as AOL's was. Yes, I too would like the break-up to happen sooner, but if the price of the haste is introduction of more government regulation, then no, thanks — that is worse, than any harm Verizon can cause.
A large part of me blames this whole mess on the McCarthyism-induced confusion between socialism and communism in America. We've given ourselves just the right kind of collective brain damage to be unable to tell the difference.
McCarthy — despite his un-American methods — was right in principle: there really were plenty of Soviet spies in America, and Communism-sympathizers were getting sponsored by the KGB (and not just in America, of course; their influence set India back for a decade or two as well, for another example). This fact was well confirmed, when many of the KGB documents got opened briefly in the 1990ies. You will notice, how America's Communist Party disappeared together with the Soviet Union, with only a pale shadow remaining.
As for the distinction between Socialism and Communism — yes, these are distinct. Their true adherents tend view the former as a prelude to the (inevitable) latter, however, so mixing them up is not really such a fallacy... It is highly off-topic here, though.
Right here is the problem. Why should I charge whatever I want to charge is no one's business except mine. As long as competition exists, that is — and if it does not, then bring on the anti-trust laws...
Your trying to count my money and make my fees your business is exactly, what I'm talking about, when I criticize the attempts to erode ownership and how these attempts reduce incentives to invest.
My sense is still that the ISPs that are complaining about net neutrality are simply being greedy and don't want to invest money to cope with the growth in usage.
Unless the ownership is secure, there will not be much investment — that's so obvious, it is a truism. Yet these people expect companies to invest in infrastructure, while, at the same time, trying to reduce the companies' control of same:
Oh, you built a new pipe? Great! No, we are not going to let you charge a premium for using it, no sir, net-neutrality and all... Don't be greedy, we want to trade our warez and to hold high-res video-conferences over it.
Well, screw you, Commies, we are not building new pipes...
Next you'll see some creeps argue, that the free market is failing, and that the government thus needs to take over the Internet service provision, much like it currently is responsible for highways (is not that a roaring success)...
Ownership of ideas is a very dangerous and oppressive thing.
Although I agree, that the current implementation of the Patent system in the US is buggy, the above-quoted statement is non-sense. Although buggy, the patent system works — and worked for centuries — driving innovation. As making things becomes easier and easier, designing becomes more and more valuable. An idea deserves no less protection, than physical goods or real estate.
And the more such companies there are, who compete for ideas, the higher the price...
So, in principle, it is good news, that the buyers of ideas are well funded.
It sucks, that, in practice, the patents are often too broad, but the principle is great. One can market a patented idea with possible implementors without fear of seeing it stolen, etc.
Well, they'd have to convince me, but since I got no seat in the UNO...
"They" being US? No, US don't need to convince you — nor anyone. US openly admits to having nuclear weapons. It is Iran, who denies it — unconvincingly.
I'd ask the question where does that material for those nukes come from?
They are making it — that's the whole story for the last several years. Educate yourself.
Boy, does that Politburo know how to turn a phrase. I know I'm inspired.
Of course they do. Its easy — just look around this very forum, where a dozens of morons are already posting "insightful" comments on how America's evil corporationy corporations are controlling our minds just as bad as Chinese totalitarians are trying to control their subjects'.
All, they know about Communism, they learned from "Motorcyle Diaries" and other scumbag-romanticizing crap like that...
So long as the quoted singer remains free and best-selling (along with fierce government critics like Michael Moore), things aren't so bad here, are they?
They got caught lying on the issue several times before and no longer allow foreign inspectors to check their sites. At least one research facility was not only completely razed before inspectors were allowed to visit it, its top soilwas removed and carried away into direction unknown...
But yes, maybe, it is a purely peaceful research. Right...
There are ways to develop nuclear technology for energy production without raising suspicions. Iran is, quite obviously, hiding something.
They are not going to be so stupid as to actually use a nuke, but they will threaten Israel with it, allowing Israel's neighbors to make another attempt to wipe the little country off the map again. These attempts stopped in the 20th century, when Israel hinted at their own nukes — Iran is now seeking the dubious glory of tipping the balance back again...
Slashdot Mirror
True about entire societies. The more evolved, the truer — one may even perish completely, when confronted by another, which manages to concentrate on the mission of killing the enemy, instead of "seeing his side".
No, you can't. According to this example you need to issue an explicit "snapshot" command — I checked my facts before posting, as well as I could, anyway. There is no word yet on the maximum number of snapshots — they may well be limited to 20 as well.
What a major oopsie, I might add... I mean, you could've come up humbly with something "As far as I know, ext3cow is better, because it requires no explicit snapshot-taking". Then it would not have been such an embarassment to be wrong.
But you chose to use terms like "wankfest", "mouth before ears", etc... Fanboy indeed...
I am a Bush-endorsing conservative. You were saying?..
Yep, would be a fun, would not it? All those personal-illiberals drowning in their anger, while secretly wishing, they were up there themselves... But there'll be no such headlines, because the very term "swinger" would require an adult-rated explanation...
Astronauts' personal lives will not be detailed one way or the other.
BSD operating systems had filesystem snapshots functionality for several years now... Linux is catching up — in a usual Linux way with patches, which one has to collect from all over...
Or am I misreading the write-up and this new ext3cow thingy is much more than that?
There were very few women in the military, when bromide was widely used — until fairly recently. Most men are heterosexual, and the "don't ask don't tell" policy is a very new one — until its introduction, homosexuals were promptly discharged.
These observations are US-centric, but a lot of other militaries treat(ed) homosexuals the same or even worse. USSR, for example, considered all homosexuality a crime — the incentive to suppress one's "deviant" urges was very strong in that country's massive military, much stronger, than bromide would provide.
The stuff is/was used in non-military situations too, BTW. For example, long-range merchant shippers would mix it into desserts served to the crew. I know for sure, Soviet merchant fleet used it... But those voyages are rarely longer than a few months, whereas the space missions being discussed might last years without calling to any port.
That only worked, because there weren't many females in close proximity. If you interact with them daily, no chemical will help much.
Personally, I think, they should pick swingers for the mission — there will be no reproductive sex on board, so the partners need no particular attachment to each other (as parents-to-be should have). Swingers, who change partners easily, supposedly, can enjoy the physical aspect of it without "drama"...
Finding capable astronauts, who are also into swinging, may be difficult, though...
Hopefully, the filesystems, which can pack multiple short files into a block, will become more popular... ReiserFS does this, supposedly — I wonder, if anything else does...
Try something like this...
What's so beautiful? Have we given up on the idea of "standards"? Where I am, having an implementation define the standard is considered rather ugly, if not flat-out wrong...
"Mainstream" rock bands don't usually release their songs for free. This one did, for whatever reasons, one of the reasons — by popular opinion, at least — being "to show our openness and appreciation for the fans". Well, this fan is offended, rather than pleased...
It did not appear nice in my Firefox-2.0.0.3. A 64-bit version... My primary objection was not even to their use of Flash per se, but to the gratuitous use of Flash. They did not use any of the features, that are only available with Flash. It is a static page. You click on a link, you download the files — that's all.
I care not for the licensing — my beef is availability, or, rather, the lack of it. There is no Flash for 64-bit platforms, not even for Windows... An iPod can play "Garage Band", but I can't get the NIN's files onto mine, because their web-master (obviously one with stress on style, rather than utility) is of poor qualifications.
McCreevy — and his supporters/sympathizers — deserve the hypocrite charge on other merits. The man, who resigned in disgrace after nobody agreed to buy his attempts to portray his assigning a juicy "homeland security" contract (for which everyone renting a car in NJ is paying $5/day — per McCreevy's orders) as a "gay rights" issue, is now — I kid you not — an Ethics, Law, and Leadership professor ...
No, he was, actually, in the front seat — someone else (a woman) was in the back seat. He could not possibly not have seen, how fast they were going. The crash occured, because someone driving in front of them could not get out of the way quickly enough.
Not only is not "open", it is also remarkably stupid — the largely plain-text page (its background being a giant JPG) linked from the write-up is written entirely in Flash... There are not ringing bells and no blowing wistles — their web-master, apparently, knows only the single tool (hammer), and everything looks like a nail to him/her... Eeewwww..
You make bombastic claims, that you don't back up with any references. You also use incorrect terms:
Where? How?
Violations of peering agreements are to be enforced in courts with contract law, not government regulations.
Again, if that sabotage you are alleging is in violation of the terms of any agreement, the injured payer has the courts as the recourse. We don't need (Federal) government to intervene here any more, than in any other contract dispute.
The benefit is obvious — to allow them to exist. If they were to be charged with censoring content, they would fail and nobody would win.
Yada-yada. What are you, running for President or something? "Informative" my behind...
We remember that perfectly well, but interpret it differently. The Internet is the result of a "spillover" of the dual-use technology. Developed by the DoD for itself, it turned out (or was wisely designed) to be usable by others. This was terrific and has since been matched only by GPS in popularity.
Mind you, ARPANET has paid only for the development of software and the standards — it did not pay for the pipes or other hardware, that today's socialists demand be upgraded.
Yours really is a non-argument here. I believe, you just wanted to see the words "crypto-socialist" posted.
Creating and maintaining the standards (TCP/IP, 110V, HDTV) is perfectly within the government's domain. Utilizing those standards is up to the free market, which is what it did and continues to do.
Verizon's walled garden will be broken up by the free market, just as AOL's was. Yes, I too would like the break-up to happen sooner, but if the price of the haste is introduction of more government regulation, then no, thanks — that is worse, than any harm Verizon can cause.
McCarthy — despite his un-American methods — was right in principle: there really were plenty of Soviet spies in America, and Communism-sympathizers were getting sponsored by the KGB (and not just in America, of course; their influence set India back for a decade or two as well, for another example). This fact was well confirmed, when many of the KGB documents got opened briefly in the 1990ies. You will notice, how America's Communist Party disappeared together with the Soviet Union, with only a pale shadow remaining.
As for the distinction between Socialism and Communism — yes, these are distinct. Their true adherents tend view the former as a prelude to the (inevitable) latter, however, so mixing them up is not really such a fallacy... It is highly off-topic here, though.
Right here is the problem. Why should I charge whatever I want to charge is no one's business except mine. As long as competition exists, that is — and if it does not, then bring on the anti-trust laws...
Your trying to count my money and make my fees your business is exactly, what I'm talking about, when I criticize the attempts to erode ownership and how these attempts reduce incentives to invest.
Unless the ownership is secure, there will not be much investment — that's so obvious, it is a truism. Yet these people expect companies to invest in infrastructure, while, at the same time, trying to reduce the companies' control of same:
Next you'll see some creeps argue, that the free market is failing, and that the government thus needs to take over the Internet service provision, much like it currently is responsible for highways (is not that a roaring success)...
Although I agree, that the current implementation of the Patent system in the US is buggy, the above-quoted statement is non-sense. Although buggy, the patent system works — and worked for centuries — driving innovation. As making things becomes easier and easier, designing becomes more and more valuable. An idea deserves no less protection, than physical goods or real estate.
Yes, a pure idea — without implementation?
If it is worth anything, then it can be sold.
And the more such companies there are, who compete for ideas, the higher the price...
So, in principle, it is good news, that the buyers of ideas are well funded.
It sucks, that, in practice, the patents are often too broad, but the principle is great. One can market a patented idea with possible implementors without fear of seeing it stolen, etc.
"They" being US? No, US don't need to convince you — nor anyone. US openly admits to having nuclear weapons. It is Iran, who denies it — unconvincingly.
They are making it — that's the whole story for the last several years. Educate yourself.
US does not need to convince anyone, that its power plants are for electricity — Iran does. And it is failing.
I'll take your switching of the subject from Iran to US as an implicit admission of that. Thanks.
Of course they do. Its easy — just look around this very forum, where a dozens of morons are already posting "insightful" comments on how America's evil corporationy corporations are controlling our minds just as bad as Chinese totalitarians are trying to control their subjects'.
All, they know about Communism, they learned from "Motorcyle Diaries" and other scumbag-romanticizing crap like that...
So long as the quoted singer remains free and best-selling (along with fierce government critics like Michael Moore), things aren't so bad here, are they?
You (should) care because corporations are many and competing, whereas there is only one Party (in China).
They got caught lying on the issue several times before and no longer allow foreign inspectors to check their sites. At least one research facility was not only completely razed before inspectors were allowed to visit it, its top soil was removed and carried away into direction unknown...
But yes, maybe, it is a purely peaceful research. Right...
There are ways to develop nuclear technology for energy production without raising suspicions. Iran is, quite obviously, hiding something.
They are not going to be so stupid as to actually use a nuke, but they will threaten Israel with it, allowing Israel's neighbors to make another attempt to wipe the little country off the map again. These attempts stopped in the 20th century, when Israel hinted at their own nukes — Iran is now seeking the dubious glory of tipping the balance back again...
They are trying to convince the world, their nuclear program is for electricity only.