It isn't illegal to joke about it, but what is intended as a "joke", can be interpreted by the authorities as a legitimate threat, and thus, you can be taken into custody while the "proper channels" sort out whether what was said can be reasonably interpreted as just a joke.
In other words, jokes about killing anyone, especially political figures, can easily get you arrested and detained (and perhaps convicted).
Calling the president (or president to be) a scumbag, is definitely legal, but can get you discharged from the military, as was shown during the Clinton tenure.
(Note - this is a U.S.-centric post. It may not apply internationally)
And, of course, Jay Miner (father of the Amiga) was involved with it too, IIRC.
Not quite. Jay Miner wasn't involved with the Handy/Lynx, but Dave Haynie, a 'protege' of Jay, and R J Mical, who was involved in creating the Amiga, both were. Many of the the Lynx's features were extensions of Jay's work with the Atari VS, Atari 400/800, and the Amiga.
Look, in the US society supports individual rights over those of societal rights.
And it supports the right of the dollar over all others. The right of the corporation over the individual is winning out, IMO.
When is the last time a corporation that caused multiple deaths through gross negligence, got the death penalty? Isn't his what incorporation (effectively giving the rights of an individual to a group entity) should allow, in order to be fair?
There WAS competition, the RivaTNT. That offered about the same performance as a Voodoo-whatever.
When the Voodoo 2 came out, there was no TNT (yet), and nothing in the consumer field beat a dual Voodoo2-SLI at fill rate. So no, there was no competition, initially.
People payed that much because games were severely fill limited, and there was NO other choice. Now, you can get a regular GeForce 2, Voodoo 4, Matrox g400, ATI whatever, and still be quite satisfied with most games. So I think it will be harder to move such a beast, even with all the power hungry users around.
Multiplying all the primes below a certain number N, then adding one will either result in a new prime, or in a product of primes where at least one prime is greater than the largest prime in the original sequence. This is one of Euclid's theorems that proves that there are infinitely many primes.
BTW. 2*3*5*7*11*13 + 1 = 30031, which is non-prime because 30031 = 59 * 509.
Thanks for taking the time to explain Ogg Vorbis, and answer these questions. I'm currently spending my spare time learning about the details of mp3 encoding (the *deep* details), and am looking at Ogg Vorbis as well. I'm particularly interested in what kind of improvements you can make using wavelet pre-encoding, as I assume this will allow you to encode transients more efficiently in the frequency domain (rather than just jacking up the bit rate). Do you see this being implemented in the next 4-6 months?
I'm currently reading "A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing", and it is quite an eye opener for someone with a background in PDEs or signal theory.
You talk about lame at 256, but what about VBR w/ 128 min and >256 max? Seems like it would save some space for equivalent audio quality?
I'm just getting ready to make the big conversion (Rip&Encode all my CDs, or the listenable subset of them), and I've been waiting for Ogg Vorbis to mature, so that I can consider using it. I'm quite curious to see how the Wavelet pre-encoding will work.
This reminds me of a joke that was passed around our office recently:
A civil engineer, a mechanical engineer, an electrical engineer, and a computer technician are driving along a road, when the car hits a large pothole and breaks down. They all get out of the car to inspect the damage.
The civil engineer says, "Well, there's nothing to be done except to call in the road repair people so that this won't happen again."
The mechanical engineer says, "Nonsense, we can fix the car. It is probably just broke an axle or linkage in the drive train. Fix that, and we are on our way."
The electrical engineer says, "You know, it may simply be a matter of a spark plug wire being loose, or perhaps a fuse being jostled."
The computer technician says, "I don't understand why we can't just turn it off and then on again."
I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here, but that statement is backwards. It is not hard to block porn. Porn sites desperately want to be
found. I guarantee that just blocking sites containing the words "sex," "breast," and so on will remove over 50% of the objectionable sites.
Many sites will have a backdoor access page that is designed to avoid being filtered by keyword blockers, just as the main site is designed to be found by porno search engines. The result is that using any filter that is not overly conservative, will still allow a fair amount of adult content for those eager to find it (aka. horny kids)
I haven't been to an internet cafe in a while: Is there a large percentage of persons using the internet to surf for porn? Are there many kids in there porn surfing?
It isn't the linux kernel hack that defines a Beowulf, so much as the programming library used to launch, manage, and link the various computing nodes (as well as the nodes being a bunch of independent, relatively "cheap" commodity PCs). The "kernel hack" (probably referring to bonded ethernet drivers) just helps facilitate faster communication, but could be done (in principle) on just about any unix (or even NT).
In other words, Beowulf is not a Linux only term, and could also be done with NT stations (and has been). If they were using the same programming library for node communication, then it might even allow for a mixed NT, Linux system (in principle).
Actually, they are moving to Gcc 2.95 (2.96?) and a newer glibc, which means they are breaking compatibility w/ 6.x releases (well, they may include old compatibility libraries, but it isn't a trivial change). Another 6.x release means they would probably have to keep using egcs-1.1.x.
Kernel 2.4 is optional (and the release should be mostly compatible w/ 2.4 final)
Or you need your SCSI drivers compiled into the kernel (ie. not as a module) to boot correctly (because mkinitrd isn't working for some reason, and you don't have time to mess around:)
>"Document roots for Apache and anonymous FTP are removed from/home so it may be automounted. "
What the heck does that mean, exactly?
Sun started (I think) the practice of the/home directory being a default automount point (meaning you access other people's remote home directory though/home). They use/export/home for the actual location of local home directories. Redhat used to place local things in/home, making it more difficult to use in a heterogenous environment.
By taking everything out of/home, you can use it as an automount directory without RPM being upset when you upgrade Apache or FTP.
I work in a vision research lab where we have a 240Hz refresh monochrome monitor, and can thus do stereoscopic displays using ferro-electric shutter glasses that can quickly switch at 120Hz. The monitor has a special high speed decay phospher, so that each eye image is isolated. It is quite impressive and gives very crisp stereo images. I don't know about your setup, but my guess is that the "ghosting" you see is a result of slow phospher decay and not LCD leakage. That's just speculation, however.
A system without the glasses has many advantages for us (the glasses are generally too bulky and delicate for use outside the lab environment), and we are definitely excited about his technology.
That is another good point, namely that many more people who learned to drive with small vehicles, are now driving SUVs and other big vehicles. This leads to more rolling, and other similar mishaps, for those that do not adjust to the difference.
A similar thing occured when the high powered motorcycles became more prevalent. They are probably much safer in the right hands (bigger flywheels, better engineering, etc.), but nevertheless many people who weren't experienced were prone to taking offramps at too high a speed, with disastrous consequences.
In any case, I accept your point, and appreciate the cordial reply.:)
In a casino, legit or mob-run, you still have about a 45-49% chance at winning each individual hand. In the state-run lottery, it's tens of millions to one.
A bit misleading since the payoff for those ~50% odds is not much better than 1-1. But you probably do have much better odds at the one-armed bandits (due, if nothing else, to competition) than at winning the big lottery prize (just a guess). I'm with you on the remainder of your comment, though.
Putting someone's name on a list of child molesters is NOT illegal (according to the First Amendment). If you do so, AND you know it to be false, AND it causes "damages" to be incurred to the wronged party, you may be sued in civil court to repay those "damages". The wrongdoer won't get a misdemeaner or felony offense on their record, or be put in jail, though. (IANAL).
The First Amendment is there to PROTECT the kind of speech that may cause "harm" to others (like saying a certain politician is corrupt, thus harming him if they are not re-elected. Such speech is not illegal (in theory), regardless of its effect). The issue of whether you are justified to "harm" someone, is separate.
Surely those that choose an SUV (and pay the price) are choosing it for what they think is in their best interest. And for quite a few it is justified. But is it really justified for over 50% of new car owners in the US? Surely SUV owners are safer in accidents with small cars (not necessarily with other SUVs), but their liability should be higher, since they may CAUSE far more injuries than a smaller car (and insurance must account for that, even in "no-fault" states). Your medical bill equation left out that term. So there certainly is no justification for charging the same for accident insurance. I personally think the minimum liability insurance requirements should be set higher for larger vehicles (and probably everyone in general) to account for this.
Please remember my argument was centered on urban and commuter use of SUVs, in a discussion about fuel use. Driving an SUV may be safer (until everyone has an SUV) but their high popularity does put fuel efficient vehicles at risk, and is part of the equation I must consider when deciding whether I want to buy a new breed of fuel efficient car and drive it on the same highways as all the SUVs.
As for vans and station wagons, well, you are right, they absolutley suck in terms of safety, fuel efficiency, and just about everything else but getting laid in (and they aren't exactly mate attractors anyway). But a minivan-type thing could be a safe acceptible alternative, if it were not for the high risk of getting hit by something bigger.
As an SUV hater (and a vegetarian:) I don't mind people who get trucks and SUVs because they need them (and having a ranch, living outside an urban area, etc. qualifies).
It is the yuppies and soccer moms, that get them because they want to drive a Sherman tank around on the freeways, that I hate. The "fuel crisis" of the 70's shifted emphasis on smaller more fuel efficient cars, with safety parameters designed for hitting other cars of roughly equal height. Now, the majority of new cars sold in the US are SUVs, which annihilate smaller fuel efficient cars in accidents, and have bumpers at about head level for my car. Most of these SUVs are for commuting in populated areas, by people who do not need them (IMO).
The insurance industry needs to start charging an INSANE amount of money for covering urban commuters with SUVs (because there will be lawsuits at some point based on the ideas I've just presented that will force them to), since the probability of small cars hitting a big SUV (or getting hit by) is MUCH greater than it was 10 years ago.
I'd also like to know exactly how much the current increase in (U.S.) gas prices can be directly attributed to the shift back to gas guzzling vehicles.
(To original poster, nothing against you. You are welcome to your SUV. I don't need one daily, but I sometimes rent one if I go on a trip to the mountains)
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't illegal to joke about it, but what is intended as a "joke", can be interpreted by the authorities as a legitimate threat, and thus, you can be taken into custody while the "proper channels" sort out whether what was said can be reasonably interpreted as just a joke.
In other words, jokes about killing anyone, especially political figures, can easily get you arrested and detained (and perhaps convicted).
Calling the president (or president to be) a scumbag, is definitely legal, but can get you discharged from the military, as was shown during the Clinton tenure.
(Note - this is a U.S.-centric post. It may not apply internationally)
And, of course, Jay Miner (father of the Amiga) was involved with it too, IIRC.
Not quite. Jay Miner wasn't involved with the Handy/Lynx, but Dave Haynie, a 'protege' of Jay, and R J Mical, who was involved in creating the Amiga, both were. Many of the the Lynx's features were extensions of Jay's work with the Atari VS, Atari 400/800, and the Amiga.
This film, together with Airplane, Airplane II: The Sequel
The Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker trio had nothing to do with the making of Airplane II: The Sequel, BTW. It was written and directed by someone else.
Look, in the US society supports individual rights over those of societal rights.
And it supports the right of the dollar over all others. The right of the corporation over the individual is winning out, IMO.
When is the last time a corporation that caused multiple deaths through gross negligence, got the death penalty? Isn't his what incorporation (effectively giving the rights of an individual to a group entity) should allow, in order to be fair?
There WAS competition, the RivaTNT. That offered about the same performance as a Voodoo-whatever.
When the Voodoo 2 came out, there was no TNT (yet), and nothing in the consumer field beat a dual Voodoo2-SLI at fill rate. So no, there was no competition, initially.
People payed that much because games were severely fill limited, and there was NO other choice. Now, you can get a regular GeForce 2, Voodoo 4, Matrox g400, ATI whatever, and still be quite satisfied with most games. So I think it will be harder to move such a beast, even with all the power hungry users around.
Multiplying all the primes below a certain number N, then adding one will either result in a new prime, or in a product of primes where at least one prime is greater than the largest prime in the original sequence. This is one of Euclid's theorems that proves that there are infinitely many primes.
BTW. 2*3*5*7*11*13 + 1 = 30031, which is non-prime because 30031 = 59 * 509.
Thanks for taking the time to explain Ogg Vorbis, and answer these questions. I'm currently spending my spare time learning about the details of mp3 encoding (the *deep* details), and am looking at Ogg Vorbis as well. I'm particularly interested in what kind of improvements you can make using wavelet pre-encoding, as I assume this will allow you to encode transients more efficiently in the frequency domain (rather than just jacking up the bit rate). Do you see this being implemented in the next 4-6 months?
I'm currently reading "A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing", and it is quite an eye opener for someone with a background in PDEs or signal theory.
You talk about lame at 256, but what about VBR w/ 128 min and >256 max? Seems like it would save some space for equivalent audio quality?
I'm just getting ready to make the big conversion (Rip&Encode all my CDs, or the listenable subset of them), and I've been waiting for Ogg Vorbis to mature, so that I can consider using it. I'm quite curious to see how the Wavelet pre-encoding will work.
This reminds me of a joke that was passed around our office recently:
A civil engineer, a mechanical engineer, an electrical engineer, and a computer technician are driving along a road, when the car hits a large pothole and breaks down. They all get out of the car to inspect the damage.
The civil engineer says, "Well, there's nothing to be done except to call in the road repair people so that this won't happen again."
The mechanical engineer says, "Nonsense, we can fix the car. It is probably just broke an axle or linkage in the drive train. Fix that, and we are on our way."
The electrical engineer says, "You know, it may simply be a matter of a spark plug wire being loose, or perhaps a fuse being jostled."
The computer technician says, "I don't understand why we can't just turn it off and then on again."
I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here, but that statement is backwards. It is not hard to block porn. Porn sites desperately want to be found. I guarantee that just blocking sites containing the words "sex," "breast," and so on will remove over 50% of the objectionable sites.
Many sites will have a backdoor access page that is designed to avoid being filtered by keyword blockers, just as the main site is designed to be found by porno search engines. The result is that using any filter that is not overly conservative, will still allow a fair amount of adult content for those eager to find it (aka. horny kids)
I haven't been to an internet cafe in a while: Is there a large percentage of persons using the internet to surf for porn? Are there many kids in there porn surfing?
Unfortunately, the resulting "obfuscate.c" is WAY too big to be entered in the contest...
It isn't the linux kernel hack that defines a Beowulf, so much as the programming library used to launch, manage, and link the various computing nodes (as well as the nodes being a bunch of independent, relatively "cheap" commodity PCs). The "kernel hack" (probably referring to bonded ethernet drivers) just helps facilitate faster communication, but could be done (in principle) on just about any unix (or even NT).
In other words, Beowulf is not a Linux only term, and could also be done with NT stations (and has been). If they were using the same programming library for node communication, then it might even allow for a mixed NT, Linux system (in principle).
I tried to look, but the new packages require RPM 4 to query (and I'm not in the mood to install it on my non RH system :)
Actually, they are moving to Gcc 2.95 (2.96?) and a newer glibc, which means they are breaking compatibility w/ 6.x releases (well, they may include old compatibility libraries, but it isn't a trivial change). Another 6.x release means they would probably have to keep using egcs-1.1.x.
Kernel 2.4 is optional (and the release should be mostly compatible w/ 2.4 final)
Or you need your SCSI drivers compiled into the kernel (ie. not as a module) to boot correctly (because mkinitrd isn't working for some reason, and you don't have time to mess around :)
>"Document roots for Apache and anonymous FTP are removed from /home so it may be automounted. "
/home directory being a default automount point (meaning you access other people's remote home directory though /home). They use /export/home for the actual location of local home directories. Redhat used to place local things in /home, making it more difficult to use in a heterogenous environment.
/home, you can use it as an automount directory without RPM being upset when you upgrade Apache or FTP.
What the heck does that mean, exactly?
Sun started (I think) the practice of the
By taking everything out of
I work in a vision research lab where we have a 240Hz refresh monochrome monitor, and can thus do stereoscopic displays using ferro-electric shutter glasses that can quickly switch at 120Hz. The monitor has a special high speed decay phospher, so that each eye image is isolated. It is quite impressive and gives very crisp stereo images. I don't know about your setup, but my guess is that the "ghosting" you see is a result of slow phospher decay and not LCD leakage. That's just speculation, however.
A system without the glasses has many advantages for us (the glasses are generally too bulky and delicate for use outside the lab environment), and we are definitely excited about his technology.
Oh, and the thing making the monitor do funky stuff is probably the magnet in the speaker
Cell phones most likely use a piezo-electric speaker which has no magnet.
That is another good point, namely that many more people who learned to drive with small vehicles, are now driving SUVs and other big vehicles. This leads to more rolling, and other similar mishaps, for those that do not adjust to the difference.
:)
A similar thing occured when the high powered motorcycles became more prevalent. They are probably much safer in the right hands (bigger flywheels, better engineering, etc.), but nevertheless many people who weren't experienced were prone to taking offramps at too high a speed, with disastrous consequences.
In any case, I accept your point, and appreciate the cordial reply.
In a casino, legit or mob-run, you still have about a 45-49% chance at winning each individual hand. In the state-run lottery, it's tens of millions to one.
A bit misleading since the payoff for those ~50% odds is not much better than 1-1. But you probably do have much better odds at the one-armed bandits (due, if nothing else, to competition) than at winning the big lottery prize (just a guess). I'm with you on the remainder of your comment, though.
So we have an organized criminal, a Communist, and a race-warrior. Are these not people the FBI should be tracking?
In short, no.
Putting someone's name on a list of child molesters is NOT illegal (according to the First Amendment). If you do so, AND you know it to be false, AND it causes "damages" to be incurred to the wronged party, you may be sued in civil court to repay those "damages". The wrongdoer won't get a misdemeaner or felony offense on their record, or be put in jail, though. (IANAL).
The First Amendment is there to PROTECT the kind of speech that may cause "harm" to others (like saying a certain politician is corrupt, thus harming him if they are not re-elected. Such speech is not illegal (in theory), regardless of its effect). The issue of whether you are justified to "harm" someone, is separate.
Surely those that choose an SUV (and pay the price) are choosing it for what they think is in their best interest. And for quite a few it is justified. But is it really justified for over 50% of new car owners in the US? Surely SUV owners are safer in accidents with small cars (not necessarily with other SUVs), but their liability should be higher, since they may CAUSE far more injuries than a smaller car (and insurance must account for that, even in "no-fault" states). Your medical bill equation left out that term. So there certainly is no justification for charging the same for accident insurance. I personally think the minimum liability insurance requirements should be set higher for larger vehicles (and probably everyone in general) to account for this.
Please remember my argument was centered on urban and commuter use of SUVs, in a discussion about fuel use. Driving an SUV may be safer (until everyone has an SUV) but their high popularity does put fuel efficient vehicles at risk, and is part of the equation I must consider when deciding whether I want to buy a new breed of fuel efficient car and drive it on the same highways as all the SUVs.
As for vans and station wagons, well, you are right, they absolutley suck in terms of safety, fuel efficiency, and just about everything else but getting laid in (and they aren't exactly mate attractors anyway). But a minivan-type thing could be a safe acceptible alternative, if it were not for the high risk of getting hit by something bigger.
As an SUV hater (and a vegetarian :) I don't mind people who get trucks and SUVs because they need them (and having a ranch, living outside an urban area, etc. qualifies).
It is the yuppies and soccer moms, that get them because they want to drive a Sherman tank around on the freeways, that I hate. The "fuel crisis" of the 70's shifted emphasis on smaller more fuel efficient cars, with safety parameters designed for hitting other cars of roughly equal height. Now, the majority of new cars sold in the US are SUVs, which annihilate smaller fuel efficient cars in accidents, and have bumpers at about head level for my car. Most of these SUVs are for commuting in populated areas, by people who do not need them (IMO).
The insurance industry needs to start charging an INSANE amount of money for covering urban commuters with SUVs (because there will be lawsuits at some point based on the ideas I've just presented that will force them to), since the probability of small cars hitting a big SUV (or getting hit by) is MUCH greater than it was 10 years ago.
I'd also like to know exactly how much the current increase in (U.S.) gas prices can be directly attributed to the shift back to gas guzzling vehicles.
(To original poster, nothing against you. You are welcome to your SUV. I don't need one daily, but I sometimes rent one if I go on a trip to the mountains)