By the time longhorn is out, the required graphics card will probably cost 30 bucks. Hell, I have a Voodoo 3 in my firewall just because it was one of my cards laying around.
What's wrong with a fancy interface? Just because most of you are used to consoles (perhaps maybe with a transparent background! oooooo!!!...) doesn't mean there's no point. I personally would prefer a console to a GUI since it gives me more flexability, but even though I only need a 2D card for my firewall, I could only find a Voodoo3 to throw in. I can't even think of any currently produced major card that is 2D only (go ahead and list them... it's not an argument, I'm just saying that I don't know).
Microsoft even spelled it out in one of their comparisons between their methodology and unix (please, no flaming the obvious cliches). Basically, they said that unix requires the use of console commands, while Windows overlooks that and focuses on graphical interfaces for the end user. Which one is better greatly depends on the user and the intended use.
It isn't suprising that MS wants to spiffy up their UI, and I think it'll be pretty cool to see what they pull together.
Just remember, when XP came out people were raving about how it required 128MB of Ram (minimal), but now the norm is to have practically 512.
And, of course, I would imagine, that you can turn this 3D feature off, much like you can turn off the "pretty" windows theme in XP... for the "gma and gpa" who only want to check their e-mail... but you have to really ask, why would they be using longhorn in the first place if it requires a high end machine?
An IC?? Have you seen how non-complex the list is? HDTV? Cell phones?
C'mon... although the IC SHOULD be on the list instead of the other crap (since cell phones, plasma displays, etc rely on ICs), I doubt it even crossed their minds.
You totally, horribly missed the point. Your attempt at an analogy is wrong because of inconsistency. In end of the sentence (it's just hard to pull off without killing...); you are stating that A is difficult because not A is your goal, while I state that A is difficult because of B.
If A implies B, and B is bad, then A is probably bad too
That is a fallacy (variation of Affirming the Consequent). You state (if F == Bad):
If A is F, then B is F B is F ---- A is F
But that is not my argument. My structure is as follows:
A is not F B is F If A and B, C is F C is F ------ A is F (which is the fallacy most people fall to... they think communism itself is bad).
To spell it out:
Communal systems are not bad. Human nature is bad. Human nature corrupts communal systems (C, which is bad). ---- People observe communism as being bad (and of course, that is fallacious).
You overgeneralized with A implies B, B is bad, etc... You missed the fact that A has two subsets in which one is bad and another is not (A + B = C... or your A).
The theory of communism is fine, it's just that monarchies take over, corrupt it, and exploit the people within that country.
..we will be successful in eventually discovering all that there is to discover about the physical world..
To me, that's impossible. There must come a logical loop in which one assumption relies on the other, and vice versa, thus making it impossible to logically prove any of it (see an above post about "logic works" while you're at it).
Just like any argument for existence. Sure you can come up with any scheme you want, sure some may be perfectly sound (which none that I have read are), but that does not rule out that another perfectly sound and logical explanation could not also be true.
For instance, you can either believe that there are tiny particles that make everything up, but can you prove it? They could be very very small worker monkeys that have different tasks (thus different particles), and we just lack and will always lack the instrumentation to detect this.
And the point above, which is my main point to why we can't undersand the universe, is that the study of one particle requires the use of others to study the interactions. But, this is the logical loop. There is no one particle that we fully understand, and thus we will never be able to understand anything because, of course, there are assumptions in which multiple explanations will fit.
Yea, I know... but we have some guru coder here that likes to throw everything all into one (asp, but with tons of client side apps for program interfaces, file checks, etc)... I guess I got corrupted by the non-informed computer lingo that plauges the air here.
At the company I work for (I'm not in the IT department of this one... shucks), we are forced to use IE because certian web applications we use for inter/intra department communication or data storage use asp or other activex controls.
I asked specifically if I could get firefox installed (I don't have administration access on my desktop...::sigh::), and one of the IT guys just said "we would, but our web apps only work with IE." Ah well...
Not only because "we can," but because of the possibilities...
// Begin "sci-fi" rhetoric
Not only can a human perform much better than these little robots in terms of daily productivity, risk of being stuck on a small rock, etc, but further testing and development of manned missions could lead to larger "stations" on the lunar/martian surface, in which long, complex, and detailed experiments can be performed. Not only would we have humans performing these experiments, but in the actual lunar/martian environment. These "experiments" could even be large-scale drilling or other teraforming (perhaps in an isolated "bio-dome" as not to disturb the rest of the martian environment), and not limited to the test tube.
I suppose that if robots were smart enough and had enough dexterity to do such things then we really wouldn't need to send humans, but until that time (which I think is much much farther away than putting a man on mars), we should still try to develop the technology and the missions to put flesh and blood on the surface.
Since there is 90% less electrons to move, then there would be 90% less current. Power is I^2R, so (.9I)^2R = 0.81P
Sounds very good for portable devices, although I doubt the power consumption of flash cards was that significant (compared to an LCD with a backlite).
Although, my pen drive does get pretty warm when I'm doing enough reading/writing to it, so maybe there will be a significant benefit.
...then they tie IE into the OS so tightly that a crash in IE can crash the computer, and then they make IE so vulnerable that just using it is hazardous to the typical computer's health...
You've never had netscape crash your unix computer? Wow... I'm jealous...
There was a story a while back about the same exact thing, but unlike this incomplete and vaigue article, it mentioned that a lot of the bugs aren't actually bugs, but "warnings." (Maybe as simple as a dangling pointer... but if you're doing anything useful with pointers, they'll dangle at least for 1 line of code.)
You might have 100% bug free code, but their test might think there are 500 bugs in it, simply because an issue that would appear to be isn't because of a check or such beforehand. (but, I guess that's how buffer overflow exploits happen).
Yea I am overreacting... I'm not worried about anyone breaking in mainly because their SSH/FTP brute forces involve root (which, of course, is disabled by default as a remote login), and names that have no login shell on my system or are disabled for ftp. I just do it out of spite, and because I like to watch the block statistics from pf to go up.
The main reason I DID start this was because a few attacks started to slow down my internet connection... So it's not really security, as it is to keep my connection fast.
...I just started blocking IP subnets from china...
Actually, after reviewing logs on my firewall I found a lot of brute force attacks coming from Korea, and only a few from China, so most subnets blocked are Korean owned. But, needless to say, I'm spam free.
Slashdot Mirror
An afterthought to an earlier post.... did anyone notice we're fretting over an artice from The Inquirer???
By the time longhorn is out, the required graphics card will probably cost 30 bucks. Hell, I have a Voodoo 3 in my firewall just because it was one of my cards laying around.
...) doesn't mean there's no point. I personally would prefer a console to a GUI since it gives me more flexability, but even though I only need a 2D card for my firewall, I could only find a Voodoo3 to throw in. I can't even think of any currently produced major card that is 2D only (go ahead and list them... it's not an argument, I'm just saying that I don't know).
What's wrong with a fancy interface? Just because most of you are used to consoles (perhaps maybe with a transparent background! oooooo!!!
Microsoft even spelled it out in one of their comparisons between their methodology and unix (please, no flaming the obvious cliches). Basically, they said that unix requires the use of console commands, while Windows overlooks that and focuses on graphical interfaces for the end user. Which one is better greatly depends on the user and the intended use.
It isn't suprising that MS wants to spiffy up their UI, and I think it'll be pretty cool to see what they pull together.
Just remember, when XP came out people were raving about how it required 128MB of Ram (minimal), but now the norm is to have practically 512.
And, of course, I would imagine, that you can turn this 3D feature off, much like you can turn off the "pretty" windows theme in XP... for the "gma and gpa" who only want to check their e-mail... but you have to really ask, why would they be using longhorn in the first place if it requires a high end machine?
Should robots eat?
No.
Should they excrete?
No.
Should robots be like us?
No.
Should we be like robots?
No.
Should we care?
No.
C'mon people... aren't we getting a little carried away here?
...why should I care?
I'm not trying to troll, but I'm really asking how this will effect the US instead of just bragging rights.
An IC?? Have you seen how non-complex the list is? HDTV? Cell phones?
C'mon... although the IC SHOULD be on the list instead of the other crap (since cell phones, plasma displays, etc rely on ICs), I doubt it even crossed their minds.
...I would have to say DNS (around 1981), which brought the internet to what it is today.
You totally, horribly missed the point. Your attempt at an analogy is wrong because of inconsistency. In end of the sentence (it's just hard to pull off without killing...); you are stating that A is difficult because not A is your goal, while I state that A is difficult because of B.
If A implies B, and B is bad, then A is probably bad too
That is a fallacy (variation of Affirming the Consequent). You state (if F == Bad):
If A is F, then B is F
B is F
----
A is F
But that is not my argument. My structure is as follows:
A is not F
B is F
If A and B, C is F
C is F
------
A is F (which is the fallacy most people fall to... they think communism itself is bad).
To spell it out:
Communal systems are not bad.
Human nature is bad.
Human nature corrupts communal systems (C, which is bad).
----
People observe communism as being bad (and of course, that is fallacious).
You overgeneralized with A implies B, B is bad, etc... You missed the fact that A has two subsets in which one is bad and another is not (A + B = C... or your A).
The theory of communism is fine, it's just that monarchies take over, corrupt it, and exploit the people within that country.
he described anyone who doesn't support ever-increasing intellectual property laws as "communists".
But... doesn't sharing mean caring? At least that's what my parents always said.
In all seriousness, there's nothing wrong with a communial society, it's just really really hard to pull off because of human nature.
I thought Gödel proved it in mathematics, not physics.
...is that not everything can be proven.
..we will be successful in eventually discovering all that there is to discover about the physical world..
From the article, Leo Chalupa:
To me, that's impossible. There must come a logical loop in which one assumption relies on the other, and vice versa, thus making it impossible to logically prove any of it (see an above post about "logic works" while you're at it).
Just like any argument for existence. Sure you can come up with any scheme you want, sure some may be perfectly sound (which none that I have read are), but that does not rule out that another perfectly sound and logical explanation could not also be true.
For instance, you can either believe that there are tiny particles that make everything up, but can you prove it? They could be very very small worker monkeys that have different tasks (thus different particles), and we just lack and will always lack the instrumentation to detect this.
And the point above, which is my main point to why we can't undersand the universe, is that the study of one particle requires the use of others to study the interactions. But, this is the logical loop. There is no one particle that we fully understand, and thus we will never be able to understand anything because, of course, there are assumptions in which multiple explanations will fit.
Yea, I know... but we have some guru coder here that likes to throw everything all into one (asp, but with tons of client side apps for program interfaces, file checks, etc)... I guess I got corrupted by the non-informed computer lingo that plauges the air here.
Being a countercurrent techno freak implies using unfashionable tools. With all the positive press OSS gets, nerd-chic these days is to use IE.
Or, with regarding security, I just like to say, "I use IE because I like a challenge..."
At the company I work for (I'm not in the IT department of this one... shucks), we are forced to use IE because certian web applications we use for inter/intra department communication or data storage use asp or other activex controls.
::sigh::), and one of the IT guys just said "we would, but our web apps only work with IE." Ah well...
I asked specifically if I could get firefox installed (I don't have administration access on my desktop...
Not only because "we can," but because of the possibilities...
// Begin "sci-fi" rhetoric
//End rhetoric
Not only can a human perform much better than these little robots in terms of daily productivity, risk of being stuck on a small rock, etc, but further testing and development of manned missions could lead to larger "stations" on the lunar/martian surface, in which long, complex, and detailed experiments can be performed. Not only would we have humans performing these experiments, but in the actual lunar/martian environment. These "experiments" could even be large-scale drilling or other teraforming (perhaps in an isolated "bio-dome" as not to disturb the rest of the martian environment), and not limited to the test tube.
I suppose that if robots were smart enough and had enough dexterity to do such things then we really wouldn't need to send humans, but until that time (which I think is much much farther away than putting a man on mars), we should still try to develop the technology and the missions to put flesh and blood on the surface.
Since there is 90% less electrons to move, then there would be 90% less current. Power is I^2R, so (.9I)^2R = 0.81P
Sounds very good for portable devices, although I doubt the power consumption of flash cards was that significant (compared to an LCD with a backlite).
Although, my pen drive does get pretty warm when I'm doing enough reading/writing to it, so maybe there will be a significant benefit.
See what global warming is doing! It's even melting the ice rings of saturn!
And you all thought global warming wasn't going to happen... pfft...
You might want to beware of generalizing.
Especially if you generalize someone who has a gun...
...then they tie IE into the OS so tightly that a crash in IE can crash the computer, and then they make IE so vulnerable that just using it is hazardous to the typical computer's health...
You've never had netscape crash your unix computer? Wow... I'm jealous...
You mean I'm the only one mentally deriving the differential equation models for my partners orgasm, trying to time it perfeclty to achieve maximu...
...oh who am I kidding...
What do they classify as a "bug"??
There was a story a while back about the same exact thing, but unlike this incomplete and vaigue article, it mentioned that a lot of the bugs aren't actually bugs, but "warnings." (Maybe as simple as a dangling pointer... but if you're doing anything useful with pointers, they'll dangle at least for 1 line of code.)
You might have 100% bug free code, but their test might think there are 500 bugs in it, simply because an issue that would appear to be isn't because of a check or such beforehand. (but, I guess that's how buffer overflow exploits happen).
...because I have a great memory for faces. I can almost always tell when/where I've seen a specific person...
...But I won't remember their name for the life of me...
Yea I am overreacting... I'm not worried about anyone breaking in mainly because their SSH/FTP brute forces involve root (which, of course, is disabled by default as a remote login), and names that have no login shell on my system or are disabled for ftp. I just do it out of spite, and because I like to watch the block statistics from pf to go up.
The main reason I DID start this was because a few attacks started to slow down my internet connection... So it's not really security, as it is to keep my connection fast.
IP spoof?
...I just started blocking IP subnets from china...
Actually, after reviewing logs on my firewall I found a lot of brute force attacks coming from Korea, and only a few from China, so most subnets blocked are Korean owned. But, needless to say, I'm spam free.
we have no permanent storage solution
Call me ridiculous, but no one said we have to keep the radioactive material on Earth.
There's a giant, all-purpose incinerator in the center of our solar system... anyone notice?