How dare the evil government level income taxes to pay for national defense, the interstate highway system, polution control, and crime prevention?
Surely "crime prevention" is doublespeak for "contracting private corporations to build and manage prisons"?
NOOOO!!! Terribly wrong in one spot.
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
A problem is already NP if there's a solution for it.
NOOOOOO!!! This is totally wrong. There is a class of problems that take exponential time, which are harder than NP. And in between, there are PSPACE problems, which take polynomial space (which implies that they aren't in NP, due to the amount of time you spend writning/reading memory, but yet, easier in general than EXPTIME problems, since the amount of memory needed for the latter can be exponential).
For example, satisfiability of propositional modal logic formulas is in PSPACE-- it's harder than NP, but still easier than EXPTIME.
"NP Complete" means that this problem is just as hard to solve as any other NP problem.
More precisely, NP-complete means that all NP problems are polynomial-time reducible to that problem. Thus, there is an algorithm that executes in P, which converts any NP problem into the NP-complete problem.
Don't mean to break your bubble, but most towns and small cities in the US are in thrall to a single cable company thanks to sweetheart deals with the local community councils.
So what-- there's a free market in housing. If you don't like your local cable service, you are free to move elsewhere. You don't have to put up with it.
In theory, the government is there to make my life better, to provide for the benefits of group investments, and to take care of the things (war, sanitation, policing, welfare) that I don't want to, have the time to, or have the skills to deal with.
In liberal "theory". Experience and reason have shown that these are functions best performed by private corporations. Who do you think brought civilization to America? That's right, corporations.
Produce evidence for this disgusting and appalling statement, or shut the fuck up.
Gentlemen of the jury, I present you with USian "universities". The only place a liberal can get a job. Apart from the government, of course, which is too large because it accomodates otherwise jobless liberals.
This is a particularly nefarious variant of the ad hominem. You disagree with me, yet lack arguments. So you must try to convice our audience that I'm lying about my motives and beliefs. But you must not look like you are attacking me. So you make it look like you are praising me for my "trolling".
This is a classic example of Orwellian doublespeak. Happily, though, the tides are turning, and you won't be able to get away with this kind of thing anymore. The fascist octopus truly has sung its swan song.
By your own "admission", eh? Sorry, you've revealed otherwise elsewhere in this thread.
I also hated it. That's why I went back to programming and am now making less that I was before. But at least I'm doing something I like.
You like it because of the feeling of superiority it brings you. "Anybody can do marketing, but nearly nobody can do programming, so I'm better than that."
Not anybody can do marketing, period. Your characterization of the noble science of marketing as "90% basic math and bullshit skills" just shows you unability to grasp it. Your preference for a programming job, and your dismissal of marketing as "trivial" just proves you have the Slashdot Syndrome (also known as the "IANAL but I can program, so here's some advice" syndrome).
You seem to saying that evolution is unscientific.
You seem to be saying that I seem to be saying that evolution is unscientific. (Why can't anybody write clearly nowadays?)
How scientific are the alternatives to evolution, in comparison?
Strawman. One can evaluate evolutionary "theory" in and of itself, without reference to alternatives. Just look at what it says, and what the facts actually are. Look if the "facts" they claim to support the "theory" are actually such, and whether if they still were to be true, they would justify such peculiar conclusions the "scientists" arrive to.
I'm confused after reading what you have said, as you appear to be saying that economics is more exact than the theory of evolution. I'm not entirely sure what this means.
Any you feel qualified to comment on things you don't understand? My Lord.
I'd rather pay for tech people that marketing wankers any day... After all, anyone can do marketing.... All you need is a smoke machine, some mirrors, a pair of hip waders, and a shovel.
Yet another case of Slashdot Arrogance, the belief that because one is good at computer, one is automatically smart enough to do anything else. You are obviously no good for marketing, or for law, for that matter.
It is well known that there is hardly any poverty in the US, despite what all those liberal "statistics" will tell you. If you take a look at so-called "poor" families, they majoritarily own cars, fair-sized TVs, refrigerators, etc.
As a matter of fact, studies have shown that the standard of living for the US "poor" is higher than that of the European average citizen.
Communist USSR: no unemployment, no homelessness. Everybody provided for (albeit not grandly).
I wouldn't call communist infiltration or domestic espionage "employment". Nor stuffing three families in one appartement "housing". Your liberal double standards show here.
companies want to maximise the revenue from everybody, so, in a way, they want to screw everyone - or at least make as much as they can, which isn't the same goal a person has.
Arguments that hinge on "in a way" are bad. And don't persons, as economic actors, also have the goal of maximizing revenue from everybody?
Money is not god.
If you need to state this explicitly, you must be a person of little faith. Who would ever consider the idea that money is God?
There's nothing wrong with my sentence. I'l rewrite it for you, slightly changed:
Just because this is a very unfair comparison which neglects a very important good that Intel offers for its price:
it is brand.
"It" is an anaphoric pronoun which refers back to "a very important good..." "It is" contracts to "it's". The colon separates a statement from it's elaboration.
That said, I've *never* lived in a place where I had a choice of more than one cable company.
Then move. Simply because there is a free market on housing that means there is a free market in cable. It's as simple as moving.
The only response I advocate is refusing to give money to companies that choose to try to screw me. That's a free market tactic if ever there was one. You can screw other consumers if you so choose, but I'm not going to participate, thanks.
Ah, Liberal Self-Importance Syndrome. Do you really believe yourself to be so important that companies want to "screw you"?
In any case, corporations do not "want" anything. They are not persons, and only persons can want stuff. Corporations are entities arising out of natural law, whose purpose is to generate profit for investors. It is a known fact of economics that the activities of corporations increase the overall wealth of society, and that this increase reaches everybody in society. Thus restricting a corporation hurts us all, and above all the ones who need the money the most, the poor.
Communists like Ralph Nader, who holds ideas suspiciously like yours, are the reason that the US lost its lead in things such as the auto industry, and risks its lead in the tech and media industries.
I am frankly tired of all these fascistic restrictions on free markets that Slashdot implicitly endorses over and over again.
The only way our economy and our technological lead can increase is by giving the technology firms leeway to operate efficiently. All these restrictions, with their flimsy libberish motives like "the good of the consumer" (come on, people have won Nobel Prices by showing that free markets make everybody richer) only mean that some other country, whose leaders do the right thing and resist the Liberal onslaught, will overtake us. And we certainly don't want that to happen, do we?
If you look at the login, you see that right after root logs in, there is the "You have new mail" message. So, the logical thing to do is see if you can take advantage of this.
Having mail delivered to root is stupid and unnecessary.
Yet another case of, to borrow a term from somebody whose nick I forgot, "slashdot arrogance". The belief that because one is a tech g**k, one thus is ready to comment on any topic, no matter how far removed from computers, and more than that, be right, even if contradicting that which every practicioner of the field holds.
Do you really think that, despite the fact that there are dozens of top lawyers working at this case, nobody would have thought to look at this law you cite? Are you really that stupid and arrogant?
All this time I thought Africa's biggest problems were mass starvation, AIDS, and civil war! Good to know that they've gotten all that taken care of and now they just have to deal with developing stable web servers.
All this time I though the US' biggest problems were huge income disparities, horrible health care, violent crime, a growing prison-industrial complex, destruction of natural resource and corporate rulership! Good to know that they've gotten all that taken care of and now they just have to deal with developing stable web servers.
There is a relevant quote from the New Testament about seeing stuff that's gotten in other's eyes but not in yours, but I don't know it in English. Anyway, the point is that your (implicit, sarcastically expressed) argument can be applied to the US (which I presume is your country. If it isn't, my most profound excuses.)
Riddle for liberals (US): Since you define "African American" == "black", what do you call an African American who is white?
First of all, you mean "African USian"; America is a landmass occupied by over 30 countries, only one of which is the US.
Now, it is trivial to see that "African USian" does not cover the same ground as "black". Take a randomly picked Haitian. She's not a USian, yet she's black. Thus, your equation is falsified.
So your whole "riddle" departs from an obviously false assumption, which you impute upon "liberals". The fact that liberals are an easy target, but yet you need to revert to ad hominem to bash them, does not reflect very well on your intelligence.
USians seem to be quite comfortable using adjectives as adverbs, dropping just about every "ly" ending they can!
This phenomenon, the loss of the distinction between adjectives and adverbs in colloquial usage, is very common-- it happens in tons of languages. Spanish and French, for instance.
After that, I apt-get install aptitude, and use that for my package installation needs. I find it to be a far better tool than dselect.
Yup. Aptitude rules. Especially the version in unstable-- have you tried that? It even tells your reverse dependencies on the spot, i.e., "which packages depend on this one".
Neither double negatives or ending in prepositions have ever, ever, ever been forbidden in standard English. Read Shakespeare, Churchill, Fowlers, and the OED. The only people who assert this are those who don't have a fucking clue what they are on about.
I suspect you pick up a grammar reference like those used to teach in schools, and look what they say about this.
Of course, I'm saying "standard" as in "prescriptive standard".
Slashdot Mirror
Surely "crime prevention" is doublespeak for "contracting private corporations to build and manage prisons"?
NOOOOOO!!! This is totally wrong. There is a class of problems that take exponential time, which are harder than NP. And in between, there are PSPACE problems, which take polynomial space (which implies that they aren't in NP, due to the amount of time you spend writning/reading memory, but yet, easier in general than EXPTIME problems, since the amount of memory needed for the latter can be exponential).
For example, satisfiability of propositional modal logic formulas is in PSPACE-- it's harder than NP, but still easier than EXPTIME.
"NP Complete" means that this problem is just as hard to solve as any other NP problem.
More precisely, NP-complete means that all NP problems are polynomial-time reducible to that problem. Thus, there is an algorithm that executes in P, which converts any NP problem into the NP-complete problem.
So what-- there's a free market in housing. If you don't like your local cable service, you are free to move elsewhere. You don't have to put up with it.
In theory, the government is there to make my life better, to provide for the benefits of group investments, and to take care of the things (war, sanitation, policing, welfare) that I don't want to, have the time to, or have the skills to deal with.
In liberal "theory". Experience and reason have shown that these are functions best performed by private corporations. Who do you think brought civilization to America? That's right, corporations.
Gentlemen of the jury, I present you with USian "universities". The only place a liberal can get a job. Apart from the government, of course, which is too large because it accomodates otherwise jobless liberals.
This is a classic example of Orwellian doublespeak. Happily, though, the tides are turning, and you won't be able to get away with this kind of thing anymore. The fascist octopus truly has sung its swan song.
By your own "admission", eh? Sorry, you've revealed otherwise elsewhere in this thread.
I also hated it. That's why I went back to programming and am now making less that I was before. But at least I'm doing something I like.
You like it because of the feeling of superiority it brings you. "Anybody can do marketing, but nearly nobody can do programming, so I'm better than that."
Not anybody can do marketing, period. Your characterization of the noble science of marketing as "90% basic math and bullshit skills" just shows you unability to grasp it. Your preference for a programming job, and your dismissal of marketing as "trivial" just proves you have the Slashdot Syndrome (also known as the "IANAL but I can program, so here's some advice" syndrome).
You seem to be saying that I seem to be saying that evolution is unscientific. (Why can't anybody write clearly nowadays?)
How scientific are the alternatives to evolution, in comparison?
Strawman. One can evaluate evolutionary "theory" in and of itself, without reference to alternatives. Just look at what it says, and what the facts actually are. Look if the "facts" they claim to support the "theory" are actually such, and whether if they still were to be true, they would justify such peculiar conclusions the "scientists" arrive to.
I'm confused after reading what you have said, as you appear to be saying that economics is more exact than the theory of evolution. I'm not entirely sure what this means.
Any you feel qualified to comment on things you don't understand? My Lord.
Yet another case of Slashdot Arrogance, the belief that because one is good at computer, one is automatically smart enough to do anything else. You are obviously no good for marketing, or for law, for that matter.
As a matter of fact, studies have shown that the standard of living for the US "poor" is higher than that of the European average citizen.
Communist USSR: no unemployment, no homelessness. Everybody provided for (albeit not grandly).
I wouldn't call communist infiltration or domestic espionage "employment". Nor stuffing three families in one appartement "housing". Your liberal double standards show here.
companies want to maximise the revenue from everybody, so, in a way, they want to screw everyone - or at least make as much as they can, which isn't the same goal a person has.
Arguments that hinge on "in a way" are bad. And don't persons, as economic actors, also have the goal of maximizing revenue from everybody?
Money is not god.
If you need to state this explicitly, you must be a person of little faith. Who would ever consider the idea that money is God?
Because you need to inform the customer about your company. If you slip out of his consciousness, you're screwed.
marketting hypes != quality of the product remember RDRAM?
Yes. They didn't market it well. Whoever was responsible for that fiasco at the marketing dept. should be fired.
There's nothing wrong with my sentence. I'l rewrite it for you, slightly changed:
"It" is an anaphoric pronoun which refers back to "a very important goodWho looks like an idiot, now?
Then move. Simply because there is a free market on housing that means there is a free market in cable. It's as simple as moving.
The only response I advocate is refusing to give money to companies that choose to try to screw me. That's a free market tactic if ever there was one. You can screw other consumers if you so choose, but I'm not going to participate, thanks.
Ah, Liberal Self-Importance Syndrome. Do you really believe yourself to be so important that companies want to "screw you"?
In any case, corporations do not "want" anything. They are not persons, and only persons can want stuff. Corporations are entities arising out of natural law, whose purpose is to generate profit for investors. It is a known fact of economics that the activities of corporations increase the overall wealth of society, and that this increase reaches everybody in society. Thus restricting a corporation hurts us all, and above all the ones who need the money the most, the poor.
Communists like Ralph Nader, who holds ideas suspiciously like yours, are the reason that the US lost its lead in things such as the auto industry, and risks its lead in the tech and media industries.
The only way our economy and our technological lead can increase is by giving the technology firms leeway to operate efficiently. All these restrictions, with their flimsy libberish motives like "the good of the consumer" (come on, people have won Nobel Prices by showing that free markets make everybody richer) only mean that some other country, whose leaders do the right thing and resist the Liberal onslaught, will overtake us. And we certainly don't want that to happen, do we?
Perhaps you should read the damn article. OpenBSD doesn't do, e.g., ACLs.
This Goldstein's guy overinflater rhetoric is just ridiculous. Hackers are on a "search for the truth"? Puh-leeze.
There is a security hole fixed in 4.1.1.
Having mail delivered to root is stupid and unnecessary.
Do you really think that, despite the fact that there are dozens of top lawyers working at this case, nobody would have thought to look at this law you cite? Are you really that stupid and arrogant?
All this time I though the US' biggest problems were huge income disparities, horrible health care, violent crime, a growing prison-industrial complex, destruction of natural resource and corporate rulership! Good to know that they've gotten all that taken care of and now they just have to deal with developing stable web servers.
There is a relevant quote from the New Testament about seeing stuff that's gotten in other's eyes but not in yours, but I don't know it in English. Anyway, the point is that your (implicit, sarcastically expressed) argument can be applied to the US (which I presume is your country. If it isn't, my most profound excuses.)
First of all, you mean "African USian"; America is a landmass occupied by over 30 countries, only one of which is the US.
Now, it is trivial to see that "African USian" does not cover the same ground as "black". Take a randomly picked Haitian. She's not a USian, yet she's black. Thus, your equation is falsified.
So your whole "riddle" departs from an obviously false assumption, which you impute upon "liberals". The fact that liberals are an easy target, but yet you need to revert to ad hominem to bash them, does not reflect very well on your intelligence.
John K. Hubbard himself has described FreeBSD's installer as "Evil Incarnate" (section 3.2 of the link given).
This phenomenon, the loss of the distinction between adjectives and adverbs in colloquial usage, is very common-- it happens in tons of languages. Spanish and French, for instance.
Yup. Aptitude rules. Especially the version in unstable-- have you tried that? It even tells your reverse dependencies on the spot, i.e., "which packages depend on this one".
The version of aptitude from unstable is *the* front end to apt. "*The*" as in "the best".
I suspect you pick up a grammar reference like those used to teach in schools, and look what they say about this.
Of course, I'm saying "standard" as in "prescriptive standard".