TFA explicitly states that they time from after the boot loader is finished, to when the login window appears.
Not quite. It's when the login window sleeps. Pretty close. Some people are arguing that this is too narrow sighted, and that we should wait for the gnome login process to sleep before punching the stopclock.
It's quite prevalent. I was an honors student in CS at a state college of engineering. I recall a seminar about engineering licensing, and a CS student asked if applied to their degree, and the answer from the lecturer was a loud, angry "no". It was quite clear to me that the idea of CS as engineering rubbed them the wrong way. Even though CS is the second biggest program in the engineering college. I guess some people are certain that "engineering" means "applied thermodynamics", without consideration that the same principle that protects the public from bad civil engineers might also be handy for programmers.
But this sort of egotism is stupid, and not unique to CS: Industrial engineers also got derision. Industrial Engineer -> IE -> "Imaginary Engineer".
The education von Neumann received was substantially different than the education he imparted with his students. I'm not sure why education (or von Neumann) is relevant to the topic.
But if US wants to claim someone, how about Claude Shannon? In addition to formalizing boolean logic gates, he also invented Information Theory, and gets credit for plenty of algorithms mainly by being there first.
I'm in general agreement that Office 2k7 is an improvement. However, the logo is not at all obvious in purpose. It would be hard for any longtime user of Microsoft products (Internet Explorer primarily) to assume a product logo has any serious function.
Sure, on the surface it looks like Mozilla. But I have a counter argument: plugins are the new hotness of OO.o 3.0, and even a plugin developed by Sun appears dead. This inspires neither confidence in Sun nor the plugin API.
The fundamental problem may be that OpenOffice lacks anyone interested in throwing out all the parts that are crap. I can imagine someone saying "Fuck you Sun, your coders are insane!" but not the next, critical part "And I'll publish an experimental branch that doesn't suck, since the software is still useful."
Fascists only need to torture and jail and disappear people with politically damaging power. Like journalists who could reveal that the leaks you swore to find and punish came from your VP's chief of staff. Or, if I were as conspiratorially minded and leftist as you seem to think I am, the sysadmin who ran the email server and knows where all the missing mail went. I have no inside knowledge of the white house, or people following me ready to overthrow anything.
Far-Right is an ambiguous term. It could mean small government, or an incredibly invasive one ready to form an ecclesiastical state. Or it could mean an ultra nationalistic militant one. I don't know which one any given poster means, but I do know that W has tried very hard to prove he does not like the left. So much so, that you can probably pick any one meaning for "far-right" and a passable response could be crafted to demonstrate how the Bush administration was "far-right".
Ok. So federal relief to faith-based service organizations, private meetings with energy executives, government owned banks and industry, withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile defense, warrantless wiretapping, executive wartime powers extending to the VP and preemptive war and torture aren't far right?
The list above is so damn long I can forgive you for having amnesia. They are not mere policies of stupid; they're borderline fascist.
The problem, as always, is training. Computers and math are anathema to elementary ed majors. (If you disagree, please explain to me why elementary education teachers can get away with just College Algebra and "Introduction to Contemporary Mathematics," a course likely dominated by one or two math adverse majors)
Here's what happened when I was a young student: 5 minutes lining up as a class, quietly walking to the lab. 5 minutes getting everyone into computers and putting floppy disks in Apple IIs. 5 minutes explaining what logo is and how to start it. 5 minutes explaining how to make a turtle draw a square. 5 minutes of kids with no typing abilities enter in REPEAT 4 [FW 10 RT 90] 5 minutes putting things away, lining up and quietly returning to the classroom. It wasn't until much later that I discovered that logo was a much much richer environment than that, and that when properly used, can express the fundamentals of Computer Science.
When was this? When a friend in elementary education came to me asking for help with LOGO. She had enrolled in a graduate level education course on Logo in the classroom (as part of a certification or emphasis I think). Now, our traditional programming course in the CS department equally fulfills the requirements, but their advisors advise against it. She came to me asking for help implementing a pig latin translator in logo, which interested me. Not just because she had never heard of Pig Latin, but I didn't know Logo had anything relevant to implement something like that in a simple manner.
Long story short, understanding recursion and drawing a tree in logo is extra credit, and I have no hope for the future of CS education in K-12.
I have to say, that Modern Compiler Implementation sits on my bookshelf still, and was pretty handy for my compilers class. I haven't bothered looking at the Dragon Book, but I can't say any of the above conversation has convinced me it's worth pursuing.
There's something called Turing completeness that blows "solve it with smarter compilers" idea out of the water in the general sense (even though it might work 95 percent of the time).
Threaded stuff isn't super hard. Getting threaded stuff to run FAST is hard. There's a billion tradeoffs handled by what are traditionally different parts of the system. In your silly parallelize loops idea (aka MapReduce) the challenge is clear (How many items do you need before setting up parallelization is worth the extra computational price?) but the factors are not (multi-level cache, loop time, scheduler performance, the amount of data to be processed). Cache in particular is a good example: by design, caches are transparent. Your code will still run with a small or large cache, or even none at all. How can you compile a program for a general purpose computer without knowing the size of the cache?
Unfortunately, the most popular performance oriented languages are still all threading hostile. C/C++ does not yet support threading in the standard. (Q:"but how does C++ do threading then?" A: Non-standard approaches!) There are languages that come with high scalability approaches, but they're so different than C/C++ that they're dismissed out of hand. Erlang is supposedly a ninja at scalability.
Ah yes, Wikipedia, where knowledge and Heisenberg uncertainty meet. Even Wikipedia suggests the neutrality of that article is in dispute. I agree that making loans increases the money supply, but to equate that with printing currency is misleading. (Nearly) every dollar a bank loans originated from a deposit (the rest comes from bank capital, from the sale of stock etc). In no circumstance are they issuing more loans than they possess. It's fractional reserve, not imaginary reserve.
If you strongly believe that fractional reserve banking causes inflation, can you recommend an alternative loan system to replace it?
In the case of America, it's a regulation that causes the split. Savings accounts are, by law, not to exceed x number of transactions a month (6 I think). Similarly, it's tax law that keeps your brokerage account (IRA probably) separate from checking and friends. I can't say how much of all this is due to the New Deal, and how much is due to later regulatory capture.
Not that banks aren't relentless pieces of scum: ever wonder why your bank pushes you to sign credit transactions, and adds fees for debit? It's because they earn way more with credit than debit, and merchants aren't allowed to explicitly charge for credit transactions. Obviously they just make up the difference by raising the price of goods, but your incentives as a consumer are silently molded by your bank for their benefit. Hell, you don't even have to sign for stuff under 25 dollars anymore.
What school do you go to, in order to learn your brand of logic? I ask, because you're hardly the first person to claim banks don't receive the money they loan.
Fractional reserve banking is about keeping a fraction of the money in accounts on reserve. End of story. They don't loan out more money than they receive as deposits. This still leads to inflation and has nothing to do with fractional reserves. If I loan money to you, you now have money, and I have a loan on my books as an asset for the amount, plus interest accruing. Instead in fractional the banking system, that loan gets spent and the people selling goods deposit money in their bank. Who makes a loan on that, perhaps to buy something from a business with the original bank. Eliminating that aspect of banking is impossible; measuring it is slightly less difficult. We have several variations on money, M0 - M3.
(And for the record, cows generally do produce more milk every year, in aggregate. By making more cows!)
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you care about "open source" outside the context of working better?
Right click on the nm-applet, pick "edit connections". Select your connection of interest, click edit. Check the "system setting" box and then "Ok."
Repeat for every connection you'd like to consider at startup.
By login we mean GDM. Which depends on X. Which depends on having your kernel modules installed.
Not quite. It's when the login window sleeps. Pretty close. Some people are arguing that this is too narrow sighted, and that we should wait for the gnome login process to sleep before punching the stopclock.
Actually, you can set wifi as a systemwide config as of Intrepid.
Wait wait wait. Bully's are now finding nerds to beat up via the internet? The universe tends towards maximal irony after all...
It's quite prevalent. I was an honors student in CS at a state college of engineering. I recall a seminar about engineering licensing, and a CS student asked if applied to their degree, and the answer from the lecturer was a loud, angry "no". It was quite clear to me that the idea of CS as engineering rubbed them the wrong way. Even though CS is the second biggest program in the engineering college. I guess some people are certain that "engineering" means "applied thermodynamics", without consideration that the same principle that protects the public from bad civil engineers might also be handy for programmers.
But this sort of egotism is stupid, and not unique to CS: Industrial engineers also got derision. Industrial Engineer -> IE -> "Imaginary Engineer".
So you might say, there are people... and you want them on fire... but you just can't get close enough?
That's an interesting description, "they had failed", for a project you were ostensibly a part of.
Wouldn't the people who benefit the most be gamers themselves?
It is not, in part because being part of a sentence makes it subject to cruel and unusual punishment. Apparently it's "nonpunative".
Probably "2006: Year of the Linux Desktop".
There are worse things in life then having OEM engineers writing drivers who happen to be named Alan Cox.
The education von Neumann received was substantially different than the education he imparted with his students. I'm not sure why education (or von Neumann) is relevant to the topic.
But if US wants to claim someone, how about Claude Shannon? In addition to formalizing boolean logic gates, he also invented Information Theory, and gets credit for plenty of algorithms mainly by being there first.
I'm in general agreement that Office 2k7 is an improvement. However, the logo is not at all obvious in purpose. It would be hard for any longtime user of Microsoft products (Internet Explorer primarily) to assume a product logo has any serious function.
Sure, on the surface it looks like Mozilla. But I have a counter argument: plugins are the new hotness of OO.o 3.0, and even a plugin developed by Sun appears dead. This inspires neither confidence in Sun nor the plugin API.
The fundamental problem may be that OpenOffice lacks anyone interested in throwing out all the parts that are crap. I can imagine someone saying "Fuck you Sun, your coders are insane!" but not the next, critical part "And I'll publish an experimental branch that doesn't suck, since the software is still useful."
Fascists only need to torture and jail and disappear people with politically damaging power. Like journalists who could reveal that the leaks you swore to find and punish came from your VP's chief of staff. Or, if I were as conspiratorially minded and leftist as you seem to think I am, the sysadmin who ran the email server and knows where all the missing mail went. I have no inside knowledge of the white house, or people following me ready to overthrow anything.
Far-Right is an ambiguous term. It could mean small government, or an incredibly invasive one ready to form an ecclesiastical state. Or it could mean an ultra nationalistic militant one. I don't know which one any given poster means, but I do know that W has tried very hard to prove he does not like the left. So much so, that you can probably pick any one meaning for "far-right" and a passable response could be crafted to demonstrate how the Bush administration was "far-right".
Ok. So federal relief to faith-based service organizations, private meetings with energy executives, government owned banks and industry, withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile defense, warrantless wiretapping, executive wartime powers extending to the VP and preemptive war and torture aren't far right?
The list above is so damn long I can forgive you for having amnesia. They are not mere policies of stupid; they're borderline fascist.
The problem, as always, is training. Computers and math are anathema to elementary ed majors. (If you disagree, please explain to me why elementary education teachers can get away with just College Algebra and "Introduction to Contemporary Mathematics," a course likely dominated by one or two math adverse majors)
Here's what happened when I was a young student: 5 minutes lining up as a class, quietly walking to the lab. 5 minutes getting everyone into computers and putting floppy disks in Apple IIs. 5 minutes explaining what logo is and how to start it. 5 minutes explaining how to make a turtle draw a square. 5 minutes of kids with no typing abilities enter in REPEAT 4 [FW 10 RT 90]
5 minutes putting things away, lining up and quietly returning to the classroom. It wasn't until much later that I discovered that logo was a much much richer environment than that, and that when properly used, can express the fundamentals of Computer Science.
When was this? When a friend in elementary education came to me asking for help with LOGO. She had enrolled in a graduate level education course on Logo in the classroom (as part of a certification or emphasis I think). Now, our traditional programming course in the CS department equally fulfills the requirements, but their advisors advise against it. She came to me asking for help implementing a pig latin translator in logo, which interested me. Not just because she had never heard of Pig Latin, but I didn't know Logo had anything relevant to implement something like that in a simple manner.
Long story short, understanding recursion and drawing a tree in logo is extra credit, and I have no hope for the future of CS education in K-12.
The browsers do. I think it was Mozilla who told CAcert they needed to up the level of inspection, and so on.
I have to say, that Modern Compiler Implementation sits on my bookshelf still, and was pretty handy for my compilers class. I haven't bothered looking at the Dragon Book, but I can't say any of the above conversation has convinced me it's worth pursuing.
There's something called Turing completeness that blows "solve it with smarter compilers" idea out of the water in the general sense (even though it might work 95 percent of the time).
Threaded stuff isn't super hard. Getting threaded stuff to run FAST is hard. There's a billion tradeoffs handled by what are traditionally different parts of the system. In your silly parallelize loops idea (aka MapReduce) the challenge is clear (How many items do you need before setting up parallelization is worth the extra computational price?) but the factors are not (multi-level cache, loop time, scheduler performance, the amount of data to be processed). Cache in particular is a good example: by design, caches are transparent. Your code will still run with a small or large cache, or even none at all. How can you compile a program for a general purpose computer without knowing the size of the cache?
Unfortunately, the most popular performance oriented languages are still all threading hostile. C/C++ does not yet support threading in the standard. (Q:"but how does C++ do threading then?" A: Non-standard approaches!) There are languages that come with high scalability approaches, but they're so different than C/C++ that they're dismissed out of hand. Erlang is supposedly a ninja at scalability.
Ah yes, Wikipedia, where knowledge and Heisenberg uncertainty meet. Even Wikipedia suggests the neutrality of that article is in dispute. I agree that making loans increases the money supply, but to equate that with printing currency is misleading. (Nearly) every dollar a bank loans originated from a deposit (the rest comes from bank capital, from the sale of stock etc). In no circumstance are they issuing more loans than they possess. It's fractional reserve, not imaginary reserve.
If you strongly believe that fractional reserve banking causes inflation, can you recommend an alternative loan system to replace it?
In the case of America, it's a regulation that causes the split. Savings accounts are, by law, not to exceed x number of transactions a month (6 I think). Similarly, it's tax law that keeps your brokerage account (IRA probably) separate from checking and friends. I can't say how much of all this is due to the New Deal, and how much is due to later regulatory capture.
Not that banks aren't relentless pieces of scum: ever wonder why your bank pushes you to sign credit transactions, and adds fees for debit? It's because they earn way more with credit than debit, and merchants aren't allowed to explicitly charge for credit transactions. Obviously they just make up the difference by raising the price of goods, but your incentives as a consumer are silently molded by your bank for their benefit. Hell, you don't even have to sign for stuff under 25 dollars anymore.
What school do you go to, in order to learn your brand of logic? I ask, because you're hardly the first person to claim banks don't receive the money they loan.
Fractional reserve banking is about keeping a fraction of the money in accounts on reserve. End of story. They don't loan out more money than they receive as deposits. This still leads to inflation and has nothing to do with fractional reserves. If I loan money to you, you now have money, and I have a loan on my books as an asset for the amount, plus interest accruing. Instead in fractional the banking system, that loan gets spent and the people selling goods deposit money in their bank. Who makes a loan on that, perhaps to buy something from a business with the original bank. Eliminating that aspect of banking is impossible; measuring it is slightly less difficult. We have several variations on money, M0 - M3.
(And for the record, cows generally do produce more milk every year, in aggregate. By making more cows!)