...re-plug internet because porn. What you say about NoScript isn't quite true. Yes, every other site needs to explicitly have their scripts allowed, or whitelisted, but that does not mean having to allow 3rd party scripts.
For instance, on this page on/., there are scripts from slashdot.org, fsdn.com, googletagservices.com, googleadservices.com, google-analytics.com, ooyala.com and rpxnow.com. Only the first two are required to make the site usable.
I wasn't even joking, you insensitive clod $ uname -a NetBSD 7.99.4 (FRZKERN) #0: Mon Jan 26 23:14:24 CET 2015 build@desk:/usr/obj_head/sys/arch/amd64/compile/FRZKERN
Sorry I didn't have time to research before, because you know this thing called work.
You... work? *gasp*. How uncommon.
But here it is for you, I spent the time to look at the FIDE handbook instead of wikipedia. At 50 moves you can claim a draw, which is automatically implemented online at every chess website I've played on
I know only two online chess services, one of which I've written myself, the other being FICS (freechess.org), which AFAIK is the largest free such service out there. Neither of the two systems automatically invokes the draw.
, but it's actually at 75 moves it legally ends as a draw whether or not you claim it in OTB tournaments. So we were both wrong.
'any consecutive series of 75 moves have been completed by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.'
So, what exactly does OTB mean? Genuine question, because so far I assumed it means playing in meatspace using a physical chess board+pieces, which can't be the case if your statement is to be trusted because it somehow seems to not cover tournament games for which the rule you quote does not apply. (Although you're a] using the phrase "OTB tournament" and b] seem to use it to distinguish from online games). What is the difference between an OTB game, and a tournament game? The clock (and only the clock?) Because then it would make sense to introduce a rule which limits overall gameplay.
Go fist yourself.
Thanks for making obvious that you've realized how dumb most of your statemens in the preceding answer were.
This analogy might work better if instead of hushing you would tape the child's mouth shut.
As the parent or guardian, what you say do define what children are allowed to do and say [...]. [T]elling your child to shut up is a form of censorship
But this is about real censorship, not the kind which doesn't even remotely work. Disallowing your kid to say certain things will cause it to avoid those words, if at all, only in your presence.
Actually, it does end automatically. I've seen it happen playing chess online.
What kind of argument is that? I've seen it in an online chess game, so this defines the rules?
I for one have seen an online football (not handegg) game which was played using 5 rather than 11 players per team. Guess how much that says about the official football rules..
Since you seem unable to do your research even when given a direct link, here's an inline quote of what I linked in the post you replied to:
9.3
The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if:
a. he writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
b. the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each playerwithout the movement of any pawn and without any capture.
Emphasis mine. Get it?
In an OTB (over-the-board) game, I am convinced a draw would be agreed upon well beforehand unless one player was going for a time win.
No. You either mutually agree on a draw, which you can do at any time, without the requirement for the 50-move or 3-repetitions rule, or, like in this case, you may claim the draw, your opponent can not object to it. No agreement required.
Regardless, your selective quote...
Wait what? Where did I even quote anything?
... left out the end:
I don't really see how I can leave out the end without having quoted anything, but since you seem to lack any reading comprehension, here's a bit to practice on:
Compare:
this rule was in effect from 1952-1992
With:
in 1992 FIDE abolished all such exceptions and reinstated the strict fifty-move rule
Emphasis mine again, just to give you a little assistance.
the fifty-move rule which states that the game may end in a draw if you play 50 moves without any pawns moved or any captures made
FTFY. It doesn't end automagically, a player has to invoke that rule explicitly.
(or 100 moves in certain special board states).
I've never heard about that, but the wikipedia article you linked says that this rule was in effect from 1952-1992. It's not anymore
I'm willing to call this proof of concept as chess even if it doesn't fully implement that.
We don't need no proof of concept for chess, it's kind of an old thing. The point here is to fit the stuff in <512 bytes, which they say they couldn't do without leaving away en passant, castling, etc. So I don't really see how this is proving any concept.
That being said, It's pretty impressive to implement what they did in this little amount of storage. It's just not chess. Now get off my lawn.
You're kidding, right? Most companies actually run DOS 6.22; see Burger King, for instance. You can run 5 processes with access to the high memory area using EMM386.EXE for each Windows NT system. If you want something small that can maximise your high memory utilization, then there's no alternative. Windows NT, or XP on my server, no thx. And vista? Seriously what were you thinking?
Lennart Poettering: [...] most people who say Systemd is un-Unixish have no idea what Unix is actually like.
What’s typical for Unix, for example, is that all the tools, the C library, the kernel, are all maintained in the same repository, right? And they’re released in sync, have the same coding style, the same build infrastructure, the same release cycles – everything’s the same. So you get the entire central part of the operating system like that. If people claim that, because we stick a lot of things into the Systemd repository, then it’s un-Unixish, then it’s absolutely the opposite. It’s more Unix-ish than Linux ever was!
The Linux model is the one where you have everything split up, and have different maintainers, different coding styles, different release cycles, different maintenance statuses. Much of the Linux userspace used to be pretty badly maintained, if at all. You had completely different styles, the commands worked differently – in the most superficial level, some used -h for help, and others ––help. It’s not uniform.
If we put a lot of the glue in one repository, it’s not all the way towards Unix, but it’s half way between traditional Linux and traditional Unix. We do not put libc and the kernel in the same repository, just the basic things. So that’s a misconception that I’m always bemused about, and I’m pretty sure that most people who claim that have never actually played around with Unix at all.
Wow... Just.. wow.
TL;DR his sole argument for systemd being "like traditional unix" is that they're maintaining it in one (as opposed to dozens of) source code repos. I think this is the dumbest reasoning i've ever heard. I also like how he calls systemd non-monolithic, of course, without giving any reason for why that is.
Yeah. Obviously "everyone" got your "deliberate" "joke", which is probably the reason for all of the zero "Funny"-mods you got. Furthermore, where did you see me explaining your "joke"?
Applying Ockham's razor, I'm much more inclined to assume that you just became the guy who posts something dumb and then tries to backpedal by claiming it has been a "joke", which is pretty pathetic.
You don't "get the Internet" when you get to access it. You don't "break the Internet", when your POS home "router" fails. Finally, you don't "delete the Internet" when you remove the shortcut to your web browser.
Have I forgotten something else you're likely to say?
English noobs
I'm not sure whether it's okay by/.'s terms of use to share an account between multiple persons, but anyway: Pleased to meet you.
The irony of your statement is perfectly visible, that was what made me reply in the first place.
Do you by any chance mean sarcasm? Because I've got a hard time identifying any in your post.
Slashdot Mirror
You really don't need Betteridge to know that Perl 6 isn't going to happen. Really, it's like Perl Forever.
...re-plug internet because porn.
/., there are scripts from slashdot.org, fsdn.com, googletagservices.com, googleadservices.com, google-analytics.com, ooyala.com and rpxnow.com.
What you say about NoScript isn't quite true. Yes, every other site needs to explicitly have their scripts allowed, or whitelisted, but that does not mean having to allow 3rd party scripts.
For instance, on this page on
Only the first two are required to make the site usable.
I wasn't even joking, you insensitive clod
$ uname -a
NetBSD 7.99.4 (FRZKERN) #0: Mon Jan 26 23:14:24 CET 2015 build@desk:/usr/obj_head/sys/arch/amd64/compile/FRZKERN
But I run NetBSD, you insensitive clod.
Sorry I didn't have time to research before, because you know this thing called work.
You ... work? *gasp*. How uncommon.
But here it is for you, I spent the time to look at the FIDE handbook instead of wikipedia. At 50 moves you can claim a draw, which is automatically implemented online at every chess website I've played on
I know only two online chess services, one of which I've written myself, the other being FICS (freechess.org), which AFAIK is the largest free such service out there. Neither of the two systems automatically invokes the draw.
, but it's actually at 75 moves it legally ends as a draw whether or not you claim it in OTB tournaments. So we were both wrong.
Enjoy:
http://www.fide.com/fide/handb...
Section 9.6
'any consecutive series of 75 moves have been completed by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.'
So, what exactly does OTB mean? Genuine question, because so far I assumed it means playing in meatspace using a physical chess board+pieces, which can't be the case if your statement is to be trusted because it somehow seems to not cover tournament games for which the rule you quote does not apply. (Although you're a] using the phrase "OTB tournament" and b] seem to use it to distinguish from online games).
What is the difference between an OTB game, and a tournament game? The clock (and only the clock?) Because then it would make sense to introduce a rule which limits overall gameplay.
Go fist yourself.
Thanks for making obvious that you've realized how dumb most of your statemens in the preceding answer were.
Because it's sooooooo old, everyone knows it already.
I didn't know about his offset head condition. Poor guy.
This analogy might work better if instead of hushing you would tape the child's mouth shut.
As the parent or guardian, what you say do define what children are allowed to do and say [...]. [T]elling your child to shut up is a form of censorship
But this is about real censorship, not the kind which doesn't even remotely work. Disallowing your kid to say certain things will cause it to avoid those words, if at all, only in your presence.
No waze will show you where cops are not where cops aren't.
Please learn how to use basic punctuation, at least in sentences like this.
Actually, it does end automatically. I've seen it happen playing chess online.
What kind of argument is that? I've seen it in an online chess game, so this defines the rules?
I for one have seen an online football (not handegg) game which was played using 5 rather than 11 players per team. Guess how much that says about the official football rules..
Since you seem unable to do your research even when given a direct link, here's an inline quote of what I linked in the post you replied to:
9.3
The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if:
a. he writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
b. the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each playerwithout the movement of any pawn and without any capture.
Emphasis mine. Get it?
In an OTB (over-the-board) game, I am convinced a draw would be agreed upon well beforehand unless one player was going for a time win.
No. You either mutually agree on a draw, which you can do at any time, without the requirement for the 50-move or 3-repetitions rule, or, like in this case, you may claim the draw, your opponent can not object to it. No agreement required.
Regardless, your selective quote ...
Wait what? Where did I even quote anything?
... left out the end:
I don't really see how I can leave out the end without having quoted anything, but since you seem to lack any reading comprehension, here's a bit to practice on:
Compare:
this rule was in effect from 1952-1992
With:
in 1992 FIDE abolished all such exceptions and reinstated the strict fifty-move rule
Emphasis mine again, just to give you a little assistance.
the fifty-move rule which states that the game may end in a draw if you play 50 moves without any pawns moved or any captures made
FTFY. It doesn't end automagically, a player has to invoke that rule explicitly.
(or 100 moves in certain special board states).
I've never heard about that, but the wikipedia article you linked says that this rule was in effect from 1952-1992. It's not anymore
I'm willing to call this proof of concept as chess even if it doesn't fully implement that.
We don't need no proof of concept for chess, it's kind of an old thing. The point here is to fit the stuff in <512 bytes, which they say they couldn't do without leaving away en passant, castling, etc. So I don't really see how this is proving any concept.
That being said, It's pretty impressive to implement what they did in this little amount of storage. It's just not chess. Now get off my lawn.
Replying because I fatfingered "Overrated" instead of "Funny".
I use whatsapp, but I don't have a smartphone. If the original client requires one, meh.
Adblock Plus... Install it, love it... no more crazy flashing ads.
...Install Ghostery because privacy... Install NoScript because many reasons... Realize Adblock Plus is now useless.... Deinstall it.
Has anyone actually successfully used vinyl to store data?
What else would you possibly store on vinyl?
You're kidding, right? Most companies actually run DOS 6.22; see Burger King, for instance. You can run 5 processes with access to the high memory area using EMM386.EXE for each Windows NT system. If you want something small that can maximise your high memory utilization, then there's no alternative. Windows NT, or XP on my server, no thx. And vista? Seriously what were you thinking?
took years to unlearn that garbage, and it wasn't even my first language.
Lennart is right about being more UNIX like.
Wait, what?
*reads TFA*
Hahahaha, oh well:
Lennart Poettering: [...] most people who say Systemd is un-Unixish have no idea what Unix is actually like.
What’s typical for Unix, for example, is that all the tools, the C library, the kernel, are all maintained in the same repository, right? And they’re released in sync, have the same coding style, the same build infrastructure, the same release cycles – everything’s the same. So you get the entire central part of the operating system like that. If people claim that, because we stick a lot of things into the Systemd repository, then it’s un-Unixish, then it’s absolutely the opposite. It’s more Unix-ish than Linux ever was!
The Linux model is the one where you have everything split up, and have different maintainers, different coding styles, different release cycles, different maintenance statuses. Much of the Linux userspace used to be pretty badly maintained, if at all. You had completely different styles, the commands worked differently – in the most superficial level, some used -h for help, and others ––help. It’s not uniform.
If we put a lot of the glue in one repository, it’s not all the way towards Unix, but it’s half way between traditional Linux and traditional Unix. We do not put libc and the kernel in the same repository, just the basic things. So that’s a misconception that I’m always bemused about, and I’m pretty sure that most people who claim that have never actually played around with Unix at all.
Wow... Just.. wow.
TL;DR his sole argument for systemd being "like traditional unix" is that they're maintaining it in one (as opposed to dozens of) source code repos.
I think this is the dumbest reasoning i've ever heard. I also like how he calls systemd non-monolithic, of course, without giving any reason for why that is.
You seem awfully ad-hominem for someone who pretended to have a legitimate point. I guess that answers that, thanks for the demonstration.
Yeah. Obviously "everyone" got your "deliberate" "joke", which is probably the reason for all of the zero "Funny"-mods you got.
Furthermore, where did you see me explaining your "joke"?
Applying Ockham's razor, I'm much more inclined to assume that you just became the guy who posts something dumb and then tries to backpedal by claiming it has been a "joke", which is pretty pathetic.
Have I forgotten something else you're likely to say?
English noobs
I'm not sure whether it's okay by /.'s terms of use to share an account between multiple persons, but anyway: Pleased to meet you.
I'm at a loss to explain why this has been modded Offtopic. This is a story about a BSD and the term MI/MD appear in TFTheo's email, geez.
The irony of your statement is perfectly visible, that was what made me reply in the first place.
Do you by any chance mean sarcasm? Because I've got a hard time identifying any in your post.
Holy fuck.
ERROR:
Javascript not activated
I concur.
What does that even mean? Pipeline-able executions? How much data? There is no context.
I think we can safely assume "yes" and "one machine word" here
[rants how crude the author's understanding of the matter is without giving a grain of indication that he's got a better understanding]
Speaking of people who sound like they're in junior high.