--quote-- You're over analizing the individual steps and totally ignoring the whole. Put all those traits together, and what do you see? A confident woman. --quote--
No... I would see a woman who was pretending to be confident.
Truly confident people don't really show it in ordinary situations. Truly confident people aren't afraid to say that they don't know. Truly confident people aren't afraid to adjust their clothing if it needs adjusting.
In other words, a truly confident person will fall approximately half-way between these two extremes.
Well, I don't know who directed it. It was shot in B&W, and had miserable production values. eg. at one point, some firemen fly through the city using a jetpack or somesuch. A thread is clearly visible above their heads.:)
MST3k stands for Mystery Science Theatre 3000. Basically, a man and his three robots are forced to watch bad sci-fi movies. While watching, they make sarcastic comments about the movie.
In the (humourously bad) movie version of Fahrenheit 451, the three TV walls had been replaced with a flat screen mounted on one wall. It would have been about the same size as this screen. Interestingly enough, at one point, Montag uses it as a light source to read by. Sometimes it seems as if that's all a TV would be good for today, too.:)
(BTW, did MST3k ever do the F451 movie? It certainly deserves it.:)
Well, Netscape is simply maintaining a codebase whose days are numbered, keeping it going until Mozilla is ready. Apparently, when Mozilla is complete, they will be taking it and using it to create Netscape 5.0 .
So there simply won't be any moves to address the major faults of Netscape 4.x -- that was what Mozilla was for.
Anyway, Netscape 5.0 probably won't be anything more than the first release version of Mozilla with a bunch of bells, whistles, and gongs bolted on. I'll have to wait and see, but it's likely that I'll stick with Mozilla, and only go to Netscape 5.0 if there's some major functionality that I can't live without.
> On the other hand, if we don't feed this theoretical hungry person (assuming they are able bodied), hunger will eventually overcome their lazyness and they will get a job and feed themselves. He then can feed himself every day
You assume that he's hungry because he's lazy. Sometimes this is true. On the whole, it's a poor assumption. Many poor people simply don't have the skills or tools they need to get ahead.
It takes more than hard work to get ahead. It takes tools and know-how. Face it, neither you nor I could build a space shuttle without the proper tools and know-how, no matter how hard we worked.
Therefore, failing to feed this hungry person is akin to a mother failing to feed her newborn child, and will likely have much the same effect.
But you are right on one count -- simply feeding the person is not a long-term solution. The child needs more than milk if it's going to grow up to be a successful adult. So its parents need to provide it with the skills and tools it needs.
Likewise, a good socialist government knows that simply giving its citizens the dole isn't sufficient as well.
> In the United States, literally anyone who works hard can become independantly wealthy.
It can happen, of course. However, there are far more people living in crushing poverty than there are self-made millionaires.
Don't try to tell me that they didn't work hard enough, either. Sometimes they work far harder than those who are filthy rich. Didn't help them one darn bit.
> The pie is not limited.
Of course it is. The earth didn't have unlimited resources, the last time I looked.
Looking at the US, this becomes painfully clear. For every self-made millionaire, there are many more people living in crushing poverty.
Anyway, your argument seems to boil down to, "Since it isn't as easy to get filthy rich under socialism, then socialism is inherently repressive." Sorry, but I find this to be remarkably shallow. Money is nice to have, I'll give you that. However, I fail to see how a system of government that makes it more difficult for one to accumulate excessive wealth could be considered repressive.
According to that article, the orbiting time is 6 million years.
The last I heard, scientists gave our sun about another 5 billion years before it explodes.
That means that the planet, if that is indeed what it is, will orbit the sun another 833 times, give or take a few, before the sun explodes.
Are you, by any chance, off by a factor of 10^3?:)
Re:Your alternate "geek-centered" reality
on
CNN Installs Linux
·
· Score: 1
Nah.
I'm a veteran of at least two dozen Linux installs on various configurations. The _ONLY_ time that I've run into difficulties is when hardware problems arose: once, a bad cache RAM chip kept crashing the system, and another time, the CD-ROM drive failed in the middle of the install.
I've also installed Win95 over half a dozen times -- each time on the same machine, I might add, because it keeps screwing itself up.
The most recent install went without a hitch. You could have knocked me over with a feather duster -- this is the first time that this ever happened.
All of my previous installs were beset by a host of silly problems that Microsoft could easily have fixed if they cared one iota about their operating system.
What's more, there were no HOWTOs to contact, and the install manual was totally useless. I searched the Internet (from my Linux box, which I had previously set up without any difficulties) in vain for any documentation that might help.
In the end, I got it to work, no thanks to Microsoft.
Windows installs are just plain TOO DIFFICULT. My personal guess is that it will take at least two years before Windows has a user-experience (from install, to GUI, to maintenance) that rivals Linux/BeOS/MacOS.
Methinks someone needs to go look up 'artful' in the dictionary. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means...:)
Re:Resolving the Uptime Syndrome
on
Kernel 2.2.12
·
· Score: 1
I would think that it should depend on your purpose.
If you're looking at this from a user's point of view, then count all downtime. The user, after all, doesn't really care why the system is down; they're just ticked off that they can't access the site.
If you're looking at this from an OS stability point of view, then only count the downtime caused by OS crashes/problems. Hardware upgrades, power outages, or someone tripping over the power cord simply aren't the OS's fault.
If you want to go for bragging rights, ignore all downtime. This will give you the highest uptime, after all, won't it?:>
(Although, in my case, I've never had any downtime on my server due to an OS crash, so it would be the same as the previous case.)
About a year ago, I happened upon a web page which enumerated various UI inconsistencies and quirks with Windows, along with some other programs. Unfortunately, I can't find it anymore. Does anyone know about a site like this?
I like money. It comes in enormously handy; you can exchange it for food, shelter, fun toys to play with, or anything else you may need to make your stay here a little more tolerable.
Certainly, there are people out there who become so obsessed with money that they can no longer see beyond the confines of a balance sheet. This is a tremendously unhealthy situation, and those who suffer from it should be pitied, not scorned.
I like Linux, too.
Why, then, is it considered some kind of taint if I combine these two interests?
You can certainly get obsessed with Linux, too, which is just as unhealthy as being obsessed with money. But, as long as you keep a sense of balance, and not let any one thing rule your destiny, what's the problem?
Of course, this is the media we're dealing with here. Balance is not a concept they understand. If something isn't white, it must be black. If something isn't totally free of the corrupting influence of money, it must be evil. The media only understands extremes.
This mentality is certainly easy -- you don't have to think about anything. It's also totally bogus.
Anyways, most successful Open Source developers seem, at least as far as I can see, to have developed some kind of balance in their lives. This, I suspect, will be proof enough against "corruption" through becoming totally obsessed with money.
Does a 200W power supply really consume 200W? I thought that that just meant that it was capable of providing upto 200W of power, but usually consumed less, based on demand by the motherboard, drives, and such. If so, then using APM features to reduce power consumption on desktops makes a lot of sense.
You are, of course, correct.
However, the monitor isn't powered through the power supply, and can use around 80W by itself -- and that's for a 14' monitor; larger monitors will consume more power. Yes, APM will reduce the amount of power used, probably significantly. So will the 'manual APM' that I use, ie, shutting off the monitor by hand when I leave the machine.
Anyways, the 200W figure was a guess, and I labelled it as such. Does anyone have any firm numbers?
Well, nothing out there has universal appeal, and Star Wars is no exception.
I gotta agree with you about the hype, though. I liked the original three movies, and I still think that the hype we're seeing now is several orders of magnitude out of proportion. Matter of fact, I'm getting right sick of it.
Slashdot Mirror
--quote--
You're over analizing the individual steps and totally ignoring the whole. Put all those traits
together, and what do you see? A confident woman.
--quote--
No... I would see a woman who was pretending to be confident.
Truly confident people don't really show it in ordinary situations. Truly confident people aren't afraid to say that they don't know. Truly confident people aren't afraid to adjust their clothing if it needs adjusting.
In other words, a truly confident person will fall approximately half-way between these two extremes.
Either that, or somebody tries to give their old VIC a performance boost by plugging a Pentium into the back of it. :D
Hmmm...
I must admit that 'burrito' isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I see a P2/3 cartridge.
Actually, they're very similar in size and shape to the game cartriges that the old Commodore VIC-20 used.
But you're right... Not 'micro', by any means. I thought 'micro' was supposed to mean that you can't see it.
Well, I don't know who directed it. It was shot in B&W, and had miserable production values. eg. at one point, some firemen fly through the city using a jetpack or somesuch. A thread is clearly visible above their heads. :)
MST3k stands for Mystery Science Theatre 3000. Basically, a man and his three robots are forced to watch bad sci-fi movies. While watching, they make sarcastic comments about the movie.
In the (humourously bad) movie version of Fahrenheit 451, the three TV walls had been replaced with a flat screen mounted on one wall. It would have been about the same size as this screen. Interestingly enough, at one point, Montag uses it as a light source to read by. Sometimes it seems as if that's all a TV would be good for today, too. :)
:)
(BTW, did MST3k ever do the F451 movie? It certainly deserves it.
Produce?
:P
Ok, I realize that eating excessive amounts of beans can cause some big bangs, but I don't really think that they're of a cosmic scale.
Well, Netscape is simply maintaining a codebase whose days are numbered, keeping it going until Mozilla is ready. Apparently, when Mozilla is complete, they will be taking it and using it to create Netscape 5.0 .
So there simply won't be any moves to address the major faults of Netscape 4.x -- that was what Mozilla was for.
Anyway, Netscape 5.0 probably won't be anything more than the first release version of Mozilla with a bunch of bells, whistles, and gongs bolted on. I'll have to wait and see, but it's likely that I'll stick with Mozilla, and only go to Netscape 5.0 if there's some major functionality that I can't live without.
> On the other hand, if we don't feed this theoretical hungry person (assuming they are able bodied), hunger will eventually overcome their lazyness and they will get a job and feed themselves. He then can feed himself every day
You assume that he's hungry because he's lazy. Sometimes this is true. On the whole, it's a poor assumption. Many poor people simply don't have the skills or tools they need to get ahead.
It takes more than hard work to get ahead. It takes tools and know-how. Face it, neither you nor I could build a space shuttle without the proper tools and know-how, no matter how hard we worked.
Therefore, failing to feed this hungry person is akin to a mother failing to feed her newborn child, and will likely have much the same effect.
But you are right on one count -- simply feeding the person is not a long-term solution. The child needs more than milk if it's going to grow up to be a successful adult. So its parents need to provide it with the skills and tools it needs.
Likewise, a good socialist government knows that simply giving its citizens the dole isn't sufficient as well.
> In the United States, literally anyone who works hard can become independantly wealthy.
It can happen, of course. However, there are far more people living in crushing poverty than there are self-made millionaires.
Don't try to tell me that they didn't work hard enough, either. Sometimes they work far harder than those who are filthy rich. Didn't help them one darn bit.
> The pie is not limited.
Of course it is. The earth didn't have unlimited resources, the last time I looked.
Looking at the US, this becomes painfully clear. For every self-made millionaire, there are many more people living in crushing poverty.
Anyway, your argument seems to boil down to, "Since it isn't as easy to get filthy rich under socialism, then socialism is inherently repressive." Sorry, but I find this to be remarkably shallow. Money is nice to have, I'll give you that. However, I fail to see how a system of government that makes it more difficult for one to accumulate excessive wealth could be considered repressive.
According to that article, the orbiting time is 6 million years.
The last I heard, scientists gave our sun about another 5 billion years before it explodes.
That means that the planet, if that is indeed what it is, will orbit the sun another 833 times, give or take a few, before the sun explodes.
According to that article, the orbiting time is 6 million years.
:)
The last I heard, scientists gave our sun about another 5 billion years before it explodes.
That means that the planet, if that is indeed what it is, will orbit the sun another 833 times, give or take a few, before the sun explodes.
Are you, by any chance, off by a factor of 10^3?
Nah.
I'm a veteran of at least two dozen Linux installs on various configurations. The _ONLY_ time that I've run into difficulties is when hardware problems arose: once, a bad cache RAM chip kept crashing the system, and another time, the CD-ROM drive failed in the middle of the install.
I've also installed Win95 over half a dozen times -- each time on the same machine, I might add, because it keeps screwing itself up.
The most recent install went without a hitch. You could have knocked me over with a feather duster -- this is the first time that this ever happened.
All of my previous installs were beset by a host of silly problems that Microsoft could easily have fixed if they cared one iota about their operating system.
What's more, there were no HOWTOs to contact, and the install manual was totally useless. I searched the Internet (from my Linux box, which I had previously set up without any difficulties) in vain for any documentation that might help.
In the end, I got it to work, no thanks to Microsoft.
Windows installs are just plain TOO DIFFICULT. My personal guess is that it will take at least two years before Windows has a user-experience (from install, to GUI, to maintenance) that rivals Linux/BeOS/MacOS.
...and may I ask why this got marked as flamebait?
'Artful' means 'dishonest', but the poster of the article used it as if it meant 'artistic'. That is what I was trying to say.
Methinks someone needs to go look up 'artful' in the dictionary. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means... :)
I would think that it should depend on your purpose.
:>
If you're looking at this from a user's point of view, then count all downtime. The user, after all, doesn't really care why the system is down; they're just ticked off that they can't access the site.
If you're looking at this from an OS stability point of view, then only count the downtime caused by OS crashes/problems. Hardware upgrades, power outages, or someone tripping over the power cord simply aren't the OS's fault.
If you want to go for bragging rights, ignore all downtime. This will give you the highest uptime, after all, won't it?
(Although, in my case, I've never had any downtime on my server due to an OS crash, so it would be the same as the previous case.)
About a year ago, I happened upon a web page which enumerated various UI inconsistencies and quirks with Windows, along with some other programs. Unfortunately, I can't find it anymore. Does anyone know about a site like this?
I like money. It comes in enormously handy; you can exchange it for food, shelter, fun toys to play with, or anything else you may need to make your stay here a little more tolerable.
Certainly, there are people out there who become so obsessed with money that they can no longer see beyond the confines of a balance sheet. This is a tremendously unhealthy situation, and those who suffer from it should be pitied, not scorned.
I like Linux, too.
Why, then, is it considered some kind of taint if I combine these two interests?
You can certainly get obsessed with Linux, too, which is just as unhealthy as being obsessed with money. But, as long as you keep a sense of balance, and not let any one thing rule your destiny, what's the problem?
Of course, this is the media we're dealing with here. Balance is not a concept they understand. If something isn't white, it must be black. If something isn't totally free of the corrupting influence of money, it must be evil. The media only understands extremes.
This mentality is certainly easy -- you don't have to think about anything. It's also totally bogus.
Anyways, most successful Open Source developers seem, at least as far as I can see, to have developed some kind of balance in their lives. This, I suspect, will be proof enough against "corruption" through becoming totally obsessed with money.
Does a 200W power supply really consume 200W? I thought that that just meant that it was capable of providing upto 200W of power, but usually consumed less, based on demand by the motherboard, drives, and such. If so, then using APM features to reduce power consumption on desktops makes a lot of sense.
You are, of course, correct.
However, the monitor isn't powered through the power supply, and can use around 80W by itself -- and that's for a 14' monitor; larger monitors will consume more power. Yes, APM will reduce the amount of power used, probably significantly. So will the 'manual APM' that I use, ie, shutting off the monitor by hand when I leave the machine.
Anyways, the 200W figure was a guess, and I labelled it as such. Does anyone have any firm numbers?
Well...
Let's say that an average PC consumes 200W (.2kW) of power. (This is probably a little on the high side.)
There are 720h (30*24h) in a (typical) month.
Where I live, electricity costs $0.07 per kW-h.
So...
0.2 kW * 720h * $0.07/kw-h = $10.08
A few notes...
I turn my monitor off when I'm not using it, so that would decrease the average power consumption of the PC quite a bit.
On the other hand, $0.07/kW-h is on the low side. In many places, it is higher.
>libc5 weighs in at 600k
/lib/libc-2.1.1.so /lib/libc-2.1.1.so*
>libc6 weighs in at 3mb!
#ls -l
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1170636 Jun 15 10:30
Huh? 3 meg? Looks like about 1.1 meg to me.
Try turning on Javascript.
Hey!
:)
Neither ALSA nor OSS supports that chip you've got on your shoulder, so why don't you just get rid of it?
Well, nothing out there has universal appeal, and Star Wars is no exception.
I gotta agree with you about the hype, though. I liked the original three movies, and I still think that the hype we're seeing now is several orders of magnitude out of proportion. Matter of fact, I'm getting right sick of it.