Guys -- I see a lot of posts here saying "they can't do this. Look at how much trouble Wine has had!"
The thing to realize is that probably 2/3's of the work is done. Wine has gotten very good lately. Add a boot loader, a native filesystem handler, a scheduler, and I'm sure a couple of other things I'm forgetting to Wine, and you are/very close/ to a Windows clone. Most of the missing pieces could probably be got very quickly and simply by grafting Wine ontop of a bare Linux kernel.
Now, I suspect that, like Wine, it will tend to have a lot of bugs and be really slow. But the project is really quite doable.
(Just for the record: it is a complete and total waste of time. But a doable waste of time.)
Just out of curiosity, I wonder if this problem would extend as badly to highly inflected languages like German, Latin, or (the ultimate in inflection) Greek.
For those not up on it... In English (which is hardly inflected) verbs are conjugated, but everything else is pretty much left alone. In an inflected languages, verbs are conjugated, but so are nouns and (in some cases) adjectives, adverbs, etc. The net effect is that it is possible to say with much greater precision what the reference of a word is.
The classic example would be where Jesus says (in English) "I tell you, this generation will not pass from the earth until all these things [the end times] are fulfilled." The thing that is never really adequately expressed in English translations is that "this generation" doesn't refer to the generation living at the time of Jesus: it refers to the generation that will exsperience an assortment of signs and wonders.
Are you seriously suggesting running Oracle on an NFS filesystem?
*jaw drops*
I would have to recommend against this. By buying hardware RAID and an appropriate filesystem add/on (e.g. Veritas File System) you can get all the benefits of the filer with all the benefits of local disk.
Yes, but Hume assigns way to much weight to probabilities based in lack of evidence. To him, the fact that he has not seen something means it probably does not exist. Read his "On Miracles" to see just how far he took this.
Look: moderation is not a bludgeon to suppress opinions you disagree with. That is exactly how moderation is being used here -- since you, the moderators -- find this idea absurd, you are going to suppress the post. The post was well-written, polite, and apparently well-informed. I would have given it a +4 interesting.
The moderation of this post is wrong, and it is contrary to the moderator guidelines, which call for moderators not to moderate down because they disagree.
My cousin who was born and raised in Florida doesn't believe in snow. By Hume's logic, we must then conclude that Snow does not exist. He never accounts for this question of inadequate evidence!
I doubt it, since if you had examined it, you would probably not call it "shaky". The resurrection of Jesus is a as fully established as any other historical fact of the era.
The exciting part of this is that there is no limit on redistribution, even after King has made the final installment.
Yes, Jamie, it probably won't work. But can you imagine if it did? Finally, you could create a virtual library that wouldn't be castrated by copyright laws.
Let me say that when it comes to Internet backbone routing, I'm a couple of years out of date since I've been focused on UNIX and programming.
However, I would say the biggest reason is that this kind of filtering can eat a *lot* of processor cycles on your router. These routers are not cheap, so you tend to buy the least you can get away with.
Also, the packet by packet comparison necessarily slows down traffic. Not a big deal for a small line, but when you're dealing with multiple OC-3's, people get a little antsy about a 10% performance decrease.
You know... As much as I detest the Christian right, this comment is really quite offensive. Why do you suppose that the "Christian Right" (A nebulous term if I ever heard one) would stoop to something amounting to credit card fraud? Aren't you just stereotyping them (with a fairly inaccurate stereotype)?
Yeah... You're right. No large company would use Linux. IBM wouldn't. Nor would UUNet WorldCOM. Or HP. You're absolutely right. I'm sorry I was so deluded. Would you send me a copy of Windows 2000 please? I've seen the light.
If.us would get their heads out of the mud and realize that the.us domain is too segmented to be useful. I mean... Who wants to type: www.hope.newportnews.va.us? It really should be possible to get a.com.us domain name. *sigh*
How did I know that this HAD to be Jon Katz, before I even looked at the by line. Only Jon could use the phrase "Old Fartism" with a straight face. Alert! The Sixties are over. Don't trust anyone over thirty -- and you're over thirty. You're in serious danger of becoming an old fart yourself!
I think anyone should be able to start a TLD. For a massive fee. Say a minimum of $1 Million/yr, which could be used (please don't laugh -- I mean it) to pay for internet infrastructure. Obviously, the really popular one would have to be auctioned off or something similar. A few ground rules would have to be things like "in the event of a trademark dispute, the tld is canceled forever with no refund, so make damn sure you own the trademark."
Amphigory does make David Hume sound like some Scottish kook with a wacky idea about the verifiability of miraculous claims that is seized on by those bad, bad critical thinkers who are just adherents to the religion of materialism but don?t know it. Those that believe it is always wrong to believe anything on the basis of insufficient evidence and apply sound critical principles, such as this maxim of Hume?s, are crazy "pseudo-scientific" naysayers trying to make converts to . . . *gasp* . . . atheism!
First off, it was not my intent to make Hume sound like a "cook". I have great respect for his work in epistemology. My intent was simply to point out a weakness in his a priori rejection of the miraculous. To simplify the argument he uses: "I ain't never seen one, and therefore they don't exist, and nothing could ever make me believe I had seen one." It's like the yokel, who, upon being confronted with an elephant, declared "There ain't no such animal!" If you think about this for three seconds, it's an obvious fallacy.
You, like a lot of people, seem to be misunderstanding the purpose and significance of the scientific method. The idea (as best stated by Francis Bacon) is simply this:
Make a lot of observations.
Draw a conclusion (inductively) from all these observations.
Notice something here: you don't start out with a conclusion, and try to prove it! Notice something else: you have to first make many observations!
And, you will notice, all the scientific "progress" that we have enjoyed has resulted from applying science in this way. Science is misapplied when it attempts to determine the reality of past events, especially based on the absence of evidence. Why? Because this kind of study always ends up boiling down to the presuppositions of whoever enquires.
Disclaimer: IANAP (I Am Not A Physicist), just an interested layman. Once upon a time I was a physics major, before I found out how much a UNIX geek can REALLY make.
Yes but. Is it not true that all the support for a universal "speed limit" (of c) is dependent on a traditional, smooth function approach to physics? That is, the problem comes in because there is an asymptotic condition around speed c in all the acceleration (etc.) equations. Thus, to reach speed C, you would have to reach infinite mass, infinitesimal (spelling?) speed, etc.
We have no reason to think this objection would apply in a quantum model, where nothing is a smooth function. I suspect that the "universal speed limit" will eventually be regarded as just another useful approximation, applying to sheef of circumstances, just as Newtonian physics are now regarded.
Remember too that all these functions allow for velocities in excess of the speed of light (but not equal to it). They will just have an imaginary component.
Slashdot Mirror
--
--
The thing to realize is that probably 2/3's of the work is done. Wine has gotten very good lately. Add a boot loader, a native filesystem handler, a scheduler, and I'm sure a couple of other things I'm forgetting to Wine, and you are /very close/ to a Windows clone. Most of the missing pieces could probably be got very quickly and simply by grafting Wine ontop of a bare Linux kernel.
Now, I suspect that, like Wine, it will tend to have a lot of bugs and be really slow. But the project is really quite doable.
(Just for the record: it is a complete and total waste of time. But a doable waste of time.)
--
For those not up on it... In English (which is hardly inflected) verbs are conjugated, but everything else is pretty much left alone. In an inflected languages, verbs are conjugated, but so are nouns and (in some cases) adjectives, adverbs, etc. The net effect is that it is possible to say with much greater precision what the reference of a word is.
The classic example would be where Jesus says (in English) "I tell you, this generation will not pass from the earth until all these things [the end times] are fulfilled." The thing that is never really adequately expressed in English translations is that "this generation" doesn't refer to the generation living at the time of Jesus: it refers to the generation that will exsperience an assortment of signs and wonders.
--
*jaw drops*
I would have to recommend against this. By buying hardware RAID and an appropriate filesystem add/on (e.g. Veritas File System) you can get all the benefits of the filer with all the benefits of local disk.
--
--
--
--
--
The moderation of this post is wrong, and it is contrary to the moderator guidelines, which call for moderators not to moderate down because they disagree.
--
My cousin who was born and raised in Florida doesn't believe in snow. By Hume's logic, we must then conclude that Snow does not exist. He never accounts for this question of inadequate evidence!
--
I doubt it, since if you had examined it, you would probably not call it "shaky". The resurrection of Jesus is a as fully established as any other historical fact of the era.
--
*duck*
--
Yes, Jamie, it probably won't work. But can you imagine if it did? Finally, you could create a virtual library that wouldn't be castrated by copyright laws.
--
However, I would say the biggest reason is that this kind of filtering can eat a *lot* of processor cycles on your router. These routers are not cheap, so you tend to buy the least you can get away with.
Also, the packet by packet comparison necessarily slows down traffic. Not a big deal for a small line, but when you're dealing with multiple OC-3's, people get a little antsy about a 10% performance decrease.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
You, like a lot of people, seem to be misunderstanding the purpose and significance of the scientific method. The idea (as best stated by Francis Bacon) is simply this:
- Make a lot of observations.
- Draw a conclusion (inductively) from all these observations.
Notice something here: you don't start out with a conclusion, and try to prove it! Notice something else: you have to first make many observations!And, you will notice, all the scientific "progress" that we have enjoyed has resulted from applying science in this way. Science is misapplied when it attempts to determine the reality of past events, especially based on the absence of evidence. Why? Because this kind of study always ends up boiling down to the presuppositions of whoever enquires.
--
Yes but. Is it not true that all the support for a universal "speed limit" (of c) is dependent on a traditional, smooth function approach to physics? That is, the problem comes in because there is an asymptotic condition around speed c in all the acceleration (etc.) equations. Thus, to reach speed C, you would have to reach infinite mass, infinitesimal (spelling?) speed, etc.
We have no reason to think this objection would apply in a quantum model, where nothing is a smooth function. I suspect that the "universal speed limit" will eventually be regarded as just another useful approximation, applying to sheef of circumstances, just as Newtonian physics are now regarded.
Remember too that all these functions allow for velocities in excess of the speed of light (but not equal to it). They will just have an imaginary component.
--