This is what happens when you install a man with a cabbage for a brain as President.
Congratulations, Americans! Your leader will now do whatever his daddy and his daddy's friends - corporations - tell him to do. You have a puppet leader, and he will do everything in his power to screw you.
Interestingly, disk caches store data uncompressed. Therefore, the pages that are actually read will most likely be available from memory or swap uncompressed.
Name me one thing that is fact that does not require any amount of assumption. Just one.
One fact is that, at this moment in time, the entry for "faith" at dictionary.com (2nd meaning) is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". It does not require any assumption to state this fact.
If you want to try and validate that fact, you'll need certain pre-requisites like an internet connection, understanding of the english language (which you seem to lack), and you might even need the assumption that the page hasn't changed by the time you read it. I can't help you on that; my brain is being taken out of the jar it's in for cleaning, so I'll cease to exist for a short period of time. In the meantime, you could help yourself by reading up on nihilism and other stuff on epistemology.
It's technically called 'clustering', but think of it like this: take the raw bits of your hard drive and divide them into 8k blocks, or whatever. Now compress those blocks and store them on another filesystem. The filesystem-under-the-compressed-filesystem takes care of where to put these physically compressed blocks. In the worst case scenario, it says 'out of space' and the write of the new bytes fail.
Your constitution guarantees you rights, but
it doesn't guarantee you any rights from the
evil megacorporations of America, which are actually the people who run the country, not the elected government. If all the TV stations get together and come up with 7 words you Just Can't Say, even if they're 7 really useful words (like, say, SEMPRINI), then you Just Can't Say them, no matter what some bit of goverment paper says you can do.
Bite the pillow while your corporations fuck you, Americans!
I simply stated all truth is based on assumption (faith, whatever you want to call it).
Call it what you want, but you can't call anything
based on physical evidence 'faith'. Faith is *defined* as the lack of logic and the lack of physical evidence.
My point was that "facts" (theories, whatever) are defined by the basic assumptions we make.
You may hold that claim about "facts", but not theories. You really need a dictionary. You need one badly. A theory is some supposition about the world that can accurately predict physical evidence. Facts don't have to predict anything.
Now to my point again. FAITH is BELIEF which is NOT BASED ON LOGIC and NOT BASED ON PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Using faith as the basis for a "fact" or even a theory is to state that your fact or theory is not based on physical evidence and not based on logic. Thanks for playing.
This is a repeat of an old troll. The arguments (identical) have been used before, and they've been debunked.
The Free Software Foundation will only accept one license -- the one that gives them control, the GPL. It does not matter what anyone else attempt to do, unless you give all software
over to their dogmatic cause, then you are the enemy. I don't think Apple should pay them a bit of attention. The FSF's dogma has always been "My way or the highway."
Surprisingly enough, Apple's dogma is "my way or the highway", too. All licenses are. That's their purpose. The FSF will use the GPL because that's what they stand for. If you ask their opinion of licenses, they have to be as free as the GPL, or even more free (BSD, etc). Licenses that don't offer what the FSF are particularly looking for get panned.
The fact that I can't make a direct system call (and bypassing the LGPL'ed glibc) in Linux without GPL'ing my software is nauseating.
Don't bypass it, then. If you wrote portable code, you wouldn't have to deal with any particular OS'es restrictions.
The fact that I can't use the GNU regular expression library without GPLing my software is even more frustrating.
Don't use the GNU regexp library, then! There are loads of regexp implementations out there.
What is the point of a library you can't use because of licensing issues? How is that free?
I write GPL'ed software. Others write BSD'ed software. It's free for us. Join us. If you don't like that, I'm sure there's a commercial library that will let you license it for money rather than freedom.
Perhaps you ought to read this talk.origins FAQ. Evolution is a fact, and the observable processes which we label 'evolution' right now will continue to occur, be true and obserable, even if we ditch Darwin's theory of why it happens.
It's like, dismissing the heliocentric solar system idea doesn't stop the sun coming up every morning.
EVERYTHING is based on faith. Study logic and mathematics for any amount of time and
you realize that all proofs are based on assumptions (just another word for faith).
Er, no. Faith is a belief that doesn't rest on logical proof or material evidence. Duh.
Given both the evolution theory and the creation allegory are so undeniably true, some people have researched how these two interact to give the overall result of humanity. This link has the details.
I'm on several mailing lists, including ones
regarding oldskool music ripping. One particular
person had written a ripper in a high level language, and wanted to know more about assembler language so he could make it rip much faster. I quite happily offered to help teach him assembler.
He understood most of the assembler instructions, by my comparing them to the high level constructs, and showing how they are built. However, the point he got really stuck on was optimisation (which is
really the point of asm coding nowadays), particularly memory access. He didn't see why accessing unaligned data was bad. So I showed him how memory is logically addressed versus the physical bus requests the CPU has to put out. I think this was the straw that broke the camel's back. He said 'thanks, but I think that's too hard for me', and he's now a Visual Basic coder. (No, really. This isn't a joke.)
Although it is nice to be able to protect your information, the fact that the technology is effectively unbreakable could mean bad news for all of us.
Police intelligence and so on rely on being able to get information. For example, when a pedophile gang was smashed recently, it was done because the police could get the
information.
Nice troll. BTW: the recent police bust was because some of the paedophiles gave away their secret keys. They only gathered evidence they
could decrypt with those compromised keys, everything else was still locked up tight. The actual encryption on their kiddie porn was never broken, but the security of it was.
... in the logical sense. It doesn't quite know how to end itself. *grin*
Well, I can testify that it works for all values of msglen, where msglen >= 0... best to declare msglen as an unsigned int... see my other stuff for more loops than you can shake a stick at.
This system 'cannot be deciphered' either. The prof's idea is nice (yes, it is just a one-time pad. yes, it does just use cryptographically strong random number generator. old news) for secure communication channels, you can't store files on your hard disk like this. Any system that allows you to get back the plaintext, allows someone else to get back the plaintext.
Anime panders to their interests more - ie guns, tech, fighting, science, sci-fi, etc. Mainstream "Bruce Willis saves the world / Courtney Cox acts dippy and sleeps with someone" is hardly worth the effort of yawning at.
Anime often tackles devious Japanese perversions, of which geeks have a mysterious interest in. That seems to be mainly because mainstream porn is so dull.
They're frightened of real people. Anime allows them to watch the same morality plays as everyone else, without the threat of real people being involved.
I bet all stinking capitalist corporations would do this if they had the chance, in fact I think Microsoft has a shitload of memos saying just this about their XML participations.
To ensure open standards remain open, I think all profit-driven members of standards committies should be banned. It's the only way.
Think about this: if software becomes truly first-class, then why would you need to pay anyone for support?
If seeing a movie leaves you exhilirated, entertained and happy, why would you want to see any other movies?
More importantly, when they bring out the Pentium 666, who's going to write the optimised gcc backend for it? In fact, why do people bring out improved CPUs, graphics cards, games, programs, utilities? For a reason M$ hasn't thought of - innovation. Nothing stays top of the range for long, you need to innovate to earn. Only luddites
want to hang on to what they've got right now by
keeping it secret.
Look, I know this is a troll, but it's always
good to have a straw man to crush:
The ultimate goal of Open Source is free software. Now this means that you don't pay anything for it.
This is but one of the freedoms that Free Software (not Open Source) brings. However, many people in this world, myself included, are delighted to pay for software even when it's free. It's called 'morality', and if an author would like a gift in exchange for his dedication, I'm happy to offer one. The greater good in this scenario is not that the individual programmer is richer, but that the whole community is enriched by the new, free software.
If this happens, there is no money to pay programmers. As a result, intelligent people such as myself, who could command 6 figure salaries in any profession will take different career paths.
That's utter tosh. Yes, I know you're a troll. However, innovative companies such as Cygnus
Solutions make large profits and employ full
time programmers simply to work on free
software! The software is costly to initially
create and maintain, but once a single copy
exists, every other copy is free. Companies like
Microsoft are backwards! They charge nothing
to their customers for the expense of creation
and maintainence, but charge full whack for the
part that's completely free - making copies! Why
should it cost more to have 1000 licenses of
NT workstation than to have 10? It's exactly the
same software on each workstation, duplicated
at zero cost.
Finally, you might want to look at this essay on motivation. I personally expect to get paid for working on proprietary customer solutions at work, but all the programming I do outside work is for Free, in all senses of the word. By doing that, I'm adding value to the software community. I also think it's fair, given how much I rely on other Free programs.
Furthermore, the evidence is that open source does not tend to produce new innovation. For example, desktops such as KDE are based on older products from Apple and MS. When open source is the only thing remaining, innovation will obviously be reduced.
Yes, I know this is still a troll, but currently
with things like GNOME, most of the innovation is in the programming APIs and code implementations - the actual user interface is neglected, programmers are just happy to leave it looking like existing interfaces because they're not UI experts, and they at least want the user to be instantly familiar, even if they do just steal layouts (such as M$ does heavily, eg Start button vs Apple menu). Personally, if I were to come up an innovative compression method, the user would not care. All he would care is that my program had the same user interface as zip, otherwise he'd say "it compresses much better, but it's a bitch to use!"
Er, no. Installer was a clone of the already existing InstallShield program for Winblows.
The thing that Amiga had, which made it *really* pain-free installing, was a standardised directory structure, and an extensible but backwards compatible shared library system. It had this in 1985.
Re:yeah, but can I pirate videos with this.
on
Play DVDs On Linux
·
· Score: 3
d00d! u must use the l33t w4r3zing tool "dd", like this: "dd if=/dev/dvd of=thematrix.dvd. It is so il33gal! We must ban "dd" now!!!!1 h0llyw00d needs rights!!!!1
Capitalists believe in accumulating wealth through the voluntary exchange of goods and services(*).
Quite possibly, but the essential part is that the 'capital' they gain is *private*. Capitalism is the antithesis of sharing. Therefore, all capitalists are depriving others of their wealth, ie the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
You'll also find that hard-working capitalist corporations prefer to obtain unskilled and semi-skilled labour at as low a cost as possible. This is good, because a reduction in costs can increase profits, market share, etc. However, it does go directly against democratic governments, who have the unfortunate task of providing at least a minimum socialist agenda, ie employment laws and minimum wages, because its capital is 'votes', and happy people make good voters.
The 'free market' has winners and losers,
but I don't think that people would choose to be
born if they were forced to live their existance
purely based on a ruthlessly capitalistic 'free market'. It's a non-natural invention, supported by the individuals who benefit from it the most. Evolution doesn't benefit individuals, only the
collective.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what happens when you install a man with a cabbage for a brain as President.
Congratulations, Americans! Your leader will now do whatever his daddy and his daddy's friends - corporations - tell him to do. You have a puppet leader, and he will do everything in his power to screw you.
Someone definately set up you the bomb, America.
Interestingly, disk caches store data uncompressed. Therefore, the pages that are actually read will most likely be available from memory or swap uncompressed.
Name me one thing that is fact that does not require any amount of assumption. Just one.
One fact is that, at this moment in time, the entry for "faith" at dictionary.com (2nd meaning) is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". It does not require any assumption to state this fact.
If you want to try and validate that fact, you'll need certain pre-requisites like an internet connection, understanding of the english language (which you seem to lack), and you might even need the assumption that the page hasn't changed by the time you read it. I can't help you on that; my brain is being taken out of the jar it's in for cleaning, so I'll cease to exist for a short period of time. In the meantime, you could help yourself by reading up on nihilism and other stuff on epistemology.
It's technically called 'clustering', but think of it like this: take the raw bits of your hard drive and divide them into 8k blocks, or whatever. Now compress those blocks and store them on another filesystem. The filesystem-under-the-compressed-filesystem takes care of where to put these physically compressed blocks. In the worst case scenario, it says 'out of space' and the write of the new bytes fail.
Your constitution guarantees you rights, but it doesn't guarantee you any rights from the evil megacorporations of America, which are actually the people who run the country, not the elected government. If all the TV stations get together and come up with 7 words you Just Can't Say, even if they're 7 really useful words (like, say, SEMPRINI), then you Just Can't Say them, no matter what some bit of goverment paper says you can do.
Bite the pillow while your corporations fuck you, Americans!
I simply stated all truth is based on assumption (faith, whatever you want to call it).
Call it what you want, but you can't call anything based on physical evidence 'faith'. Faith is *defined* as the lack of logic and the lack of physical evidence. My point was that "facts" (theories, whatever) are defined by the basic assumptions we make.
You may hold that claim about "facts", but not theories. You really need a dictionary. You need one badly. A theory is some supposition about the world that can accurately predict physical evidence. Facts don't have to predict anything.
Now to my point again. FAITH is BELIEF which is NOT BASED ON LOGIC and NOT BASED ON PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Using faith as the basis for a "fact" or even a theory is to state that your fact or theory is not based on physical evidence and not based on logic. Thanks for playing.
I speak for people with small drives everywhere when I say: When will the kernel support default compression of filesystems.
Use gzexe - which needs no special kernal magic, or apply the ext2compr patch to the kernel, which isn't that great.
This is a repeat of an old troll. The arguments (identical) have been used before, and they've been debunked.
The Free Software Foundation will only accept one license -- the one that gives them control, the GPL. It does not matter what anyone else attempt to do, unless you give all software over to their dogmatic cause, then you are the enemy. I don't think Apple should pay them a bit of attention. The FSF's dogma has always been "My way or the highway."
Surprisingly enough, Apple's dogma is "my way or the highway", too. All licenses are. That's their purpose. The FSF will use the GPL because that's what they stand for. If you ask their opinion of licenses, they have to be as free as the GPL, or even more free (BSD, etc). Licenses that don't offer what the FSF are particularly looking for get panned.
The fact that I can't make a direct system call (and bypassing the LGPL'ed glibc) in Linux without GPL'ing my software is nauseating.
Don't bypass it, then. If you wrote portable code, you wouldn't have to deal with any particular OS'es restrictions.
The fact that I can't use the GNU regular expression library without GPLing my software is even more frustrating.
Don't use the GNU regexp library, then! There are loads of regexp implementations out there.
What is the point of a library you can't use because of licensing issues? How is that free?
I write GPL'ed software. Others write BSD'ed software. It's free for us. Join us. If you don't like that, I'm sure there's a commercial library that will let you license it for money rather than freedom.
Perhaps you ought to read this talk.origins FAQ. Evolution is a fact, and the observable processes which we label 'evolution' right now will continue to occur, be true and obserable, even if we ditch Darwin's theory of why it happens.
It's like, dismissing the heliocentric solar system idea doesn't stop the sun coming up every morning.
EVERYTHING is based on faith. Study logic and mathematics for any amount of time and you realize that all proofs are based on assumptions (just another word for faith).
Er, no. Faith is a belief that doesn't rest on logical proof or material evidence. Duh.
Given both the evolution theory and the creation allegory are so undeniably true, some people have researched how these two interact to give the overall result of humanity. This link has the details.
I'm on several mailing lists, including ones regarding oldskool music ripping. One particular person had written a ripper in a high level language, and wanted to know more about assembler language so he could make it rip much faster. I quite happily offered to help teach him assembler.
He understood most of the assembler instructions, by my comparing them to the high level constructs, and showing how they are built. However, the point he got really stuck on was optimisation (which is really the point of asm coding nowadays), particularly memory access. He didn't see why accessing unaligned data was bad. So I showed him how memory is logically addressed versus the physical bus requests the CPU has to put out. I think this was the straw that broke the camel's back. He said 'thanks, but I think that's too hard for me', and he's now a Visual Basic coder. (No, really. This isn't a joke.)
Although it is nice to be able to protect your information, the fact that the technology is effectively unbreakable could mean bad news for all of us. Police intelligence and so on rely on being able to get information. For example, when a pedophile gang was smashed recently, it was done because the police could get the information.
Nice troll. BTW: the recent police bust was because some of the paedophiles gave away their secret keys. They only gathered evidence they could decrypt with those compromised keys, everything else was still locked up tight. The actual encryption on their kiddie porn was never broken, but the security of it was.
... in the logical sense. It doesn't quite know how to end itself. *grin*
Well, I can testify that it works for all values of msglen, where msglen >= 0... best to declare msglen as an unsigned int... see my other stuff for more loops than you can shake a stick at.
for (p=msg, i=msglen; i--;) *p++=0;
This system 'cannot be deciphered' either. The prof's idea is nice (yes, it is just a one-time pad. yes, it does just use cryptographically strong random number generator. old news) for secure communication channels, you can't store files on your hard disk like this. Any system that allows you to get back the plaintext, allows someone else to get back the plaintext.
ILEC = Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier - whoever owns the office, or "the pimp"
CLEC = Competitive Local Exchange Carriers - "the whores"
People watch television to be entertained. Conspiracy theory is like candy to the masses.
More like soma to the masses.
Marvellous... but why is some ropey english in an old Megadrive game suddenly so popular?
I bet all stinking capitalist corporations would do this if they had the chance, in fact I think Microsoft has a shitload of memos saying just this about their XML participations.
To ensure open standards remain open, I think all profit-driven members of standards committies should be banned. It's the only way.
Think about this: if software becomes truly first-class, then why would you need to pay anyone for support?
If seeing a movie leaves you exhilirated, entertained and happy, why would you want to see any other movies?
More importantly, when they bring out the Pentium 666, who's going to write the optimised gcc backend for it? In fact, why do people bring out improved CPUs, graphics cards, games, programs, utilities? For a reason M$ hasn't thought of - innovation. Nothing stays top of the range for long, you need to innovate to earn. Only luddites want to hang on to what they've got right now by keeping it secret.
Look, I know this is a troll, but it's always good to have a straw man to crush:
The ultimate goal of Open Source is free software. Now this means that you don't pay anything for it.
This is but one of the freedoms that Free Software (not Open Source) brings. However, many people in this world, myself included, are delighted to pay for software even when it's free. It's called 'morality', and if an author would like a gift in exchange for his dedication, I'm happy to offer one. The greater good in this scenario is not that the individual programmer is richer, but that the whole community is enriched by the new, free software.
If this happens, there is no money to pay programmers. As a result, intelligent people such as myself, who could command 6 figure salaries in any profession will take different career paths.
That's utter tosh. Yes, I know you're a troll. However, innovative companies such as Cygnus Solutions make large profits and employ full time programmers simply to work on free software! The software is costly to initially create and maintain, but once a single copy exists, every other copy is free. Companies like Microsoft are backwards! They charge nothing to their customers for the expense of creation and maintainence, but charge full whack for the part that's completely free - making copies! Why should it cost more to have 1000 licenses of NT workstation than to have 10? It's exactly the same software on each workstation, duplicated at zero cost.
Finally, you might want to look at this essay on motivation. I personally expect to get paid for working on proprietary customer solutions at work, but all the programming I do outside work is for Free, in all senses of the word. By doing that, I'm adding value to the software community. I also think it's fair, given how much I rely on other Free programs.
Furthermore, the evidence is that open source does not tend to produce new innovation. For example, desktops such as KDE are based on older products from Apple and MS. When open source is the only thing remaining, innovation will obviously be reduced.
Yes, I know this is still a troll, but currently with things like GNOME, most of the innovation is in the programming APIs and code implementations - the actual user interface is neglected, programmers are just happy to leave it looking like existing interfaces because they're not UI experts, and they at least want the user to be instantly familiar, even if they do just steal layouts (such as M$ does heavily, eg Start button vs Apple menu). Personally, if I were to come up an innovative compression method, the user would not care. All he would care is that my program had the same user interface as zip, otherwise he'd say "it compresses much better, but it's a bitch to use!"
Er, no. Installer was a clone of the already existing InstallShield program for Winblows.
The thing that Amiga had, which made it *really* pain-free installing, was a standardised directory structure, and an extensible but backwards compatible shared library system. It had this in 1985.
d00d! u must use the l33t w4r3zing tool "dd", like this: "dd if=/dev/dvd of=thematrix.dvd. It is so il33gal! We must ban "dd" now!!!!1 h0llyw00d needs rights!!!!1
Capitalists believe in accumulating wealth through the voluntary exchange of goods and services(*).
Quite possibly, but the essential part is that the 'capital' they gain is *private*. Capitalism is the antithesis of sharing. Therefore, all capitalists are depriving others of their wealth, ie the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
You'll also find that hard-working capitalist corporations prefer to obtain unskilled and semi-skilled labour at as low a cost as possible. This is good, because a reduction in costs can increase profits, market share, etc. However, it does go directly against democratic governments, who have the unfortunate task of providing at least a minimum socialist agenda, ie employment laws and minimum wages, because its capital is 'votes', and happy people make good voters.
The 'free market' has winners and losers, but I don't think that people would choose to be born if they were forced to live their existance purely based on a ruthlessly capitalistic 'free market'. It's a non-natural invention, supported by the individuals who benefit from it the most. Evolution doesn't benefit individuals, only the collective.