So I suppose the people that invented Kamikaze (for any dim bulbs out there who aren't afraid to post I should mention that I am not implying that the Chinese did this) considered males a low valued commodity?
Having a one child law isn't just because they have too many males. They have too many people in general. They've always fought through overwelming numbers, but this hasn't made them extremely aggressive. It could be why the government that repeatedly massacred it's people is still in power (i.e. the government knows that most people will not seek violent revolution because of this because human life is less valued).
Today, numbers wouldn't make them extremely effective, either. Technology wins today's wars, and their wealth is on par with the rest of the world in what they can afford to buy for war. They have no increasing reason to be extremely aggressive.
Firefox has a master configuration directory. Pretty much every single aspect of the browser is configurable through that directory. In fact, you can do a lot of things with it there that you can't with IE.
If you want to set a particular action for your people, edit the configuration stuff. There's a lot of documentation on how to do it.
Mozilla is making their browser configuration work pretty much the same as everything else in OSS: through config files, which considering the complexity is probably a good idea.
With a GUI you'd have to play "find the menu item" to get anywhere. Ironically, though, if you want to do that, then you can log in as superuser (admin), and edit this file through the browsers config inteface for most versions of it (and for most parts of the configuration).
But to switch subjects, your "corporations are a much bigger market than home users" comment is almost certianly wrong when you're not talking about an app that you sell to users.
Consider this: 1) Almost everyone who works in a corporate environment has computers to work on at work, and ones for home. Thus, almost every corporate user is also a home user.
2) Not everyone who has a computer is in a corporation. Thus, there are a lot of home users who are not corporate users.
The bottom line is that there must always be more home users than corporate users. Sure, they may not actually want to buy Mozilla, but that doesn't mean there aren't more of them.
It makes sense that Mozilla would concentrate on its primary marketshare. Especially when it does what you want. They probably assume that if you're paid to do global configs, you can figure out how. I suppose that was a wrong assumption in your case.
I'm with you on the "Tomb Raider" thing, but she's Hawaiian.
She's in good physical condition like Wonder Woman, but completely lacking in the pale white skin and blue eyes department. Then again, they did get Arnold to play Conan just the way he was (without the oft-described black hair and blue eyes from the books). Maybe it could work anyway...
Nah. More people have seen Linda Carter, the JLA cartoons, or the comics than have read the Conan novels.
You're to be describing this as if it's some kind of custom hardware with many limitations.
This could not be further from the truth. FPGAs are more flexible than any of their counterparts. FPGA stands for "field programmable gate array," and are basically a matrix of memory elements (at the very least latches) connected to gates that configured to be a particular type of gate via a ROM or something similar.
It's kind of like a chip emulator written in hardware. You may be wondering why we don't use these all the time. First, they're a lot more expensive, bigger, and more power consuming than their one-chip cousins. Second (as if that isn't really enough), they're usually 2-5 times slower than the same logic on a custom chip.
So the big question is why should we use them? What improvements can they give that normal chips can't?
The big gain is when you want to optimize the hardware for a specific application and be able to change it. These were used in high end digital video cards to be able to handle whatever kind of signal is actually output by whatever kind of camera you've got (I can only assume this is still the case, but I stopped keeping track about 2000).
I don't know if the people who wrote this thing take advantage of this idea within their design, but it's a possibility.
Interesting point. Personally, there is a veritable plethora of buttons that I'd like to see on my browser.
Of course, the usual buttons must be there: back, forward, reload, stop, home, but that's not really enough, is it?
I think a resize button would be good. You know, to change the size of my monitor. Some pages would be a lot better if the monitor was bigger.
Also, I'd like a "more interesting" button to fix those unappealing pages. If this is unfeasable, I would settle for a "summon magic dancing monkeys" button. Oh, and I think they should move the turn off the internet button into the browser. I'm tired of having to go to that page to do it.
At the very least, there should be a large, omnious red button entitled "TOTAL ANNHILIATION" with the words "WARNING: NEVER PRESS THIS BUTTON" written below so that I can know I'm not just browsing - I'm Extreme browsing.
I can list dozens of things I love about Linux. There are also a few things I love about Windows that I don't find in Linux:
Windows has VBR packet writing for CDR and DVDR available (not via Microsoft, but the Windows kernel makes it possible...unlike the Linux kernel), and has since around 2000.
They have a C++ tool that can do RAD including a fully integrated editor and GUI builder.
They include multilingual, blind, deaf, and handicapped support.
There is a unified font system, and adding a font simply means copying it into a specific folder.
They also have tightly integrated apps, but I consider that more of a security risk than a feature...
Anyway, the point is that there are things that Windows has done well.
Jacking into the junction box isn't any harder than making an ethernet cord (which just takes a spool of CAT-5, a crimping tool, some vampire clips, and an IQ somewhere around Forrest Gump's).
In fact, a lot of junction boxes have rj-11 jacks on them so you don't have to do anything to the wires. You'd just disconnect the main from the outgoing line and connect it to the ata adapter.
This is a large country. There are plenty of places here for which everyone who is working is working in an IT related area. For them, internet access is a necessity.
For those places, it's a utility. Now these places are few and far between, and that's exactly why there isn't wireless access everywhere.
Seems to me like these kind of places should get the Wi-Fi they want.
HAM radio operators hoping to contact distant life for the altruistic goal of communication aren't nearly as annoying as advertisers who want to make a buck off of every sentient being in the universe.
I'm going to be very angry when some superpowerful aliens show up to put themselves on our "do not call " list with an Earth-destroying weapon.
My teacher was even smarter. You could use any program that you wrote yourself. There's no way you can write a decent program that does any kind of math algorithm without understanding it very well.
I took him up on the offer. Later I sent in one of the programs I wrote during his class to a scholarship commission and got a scholarship for it.
There are a lot more people in all the countries you named. Also, Germany is special. A lot of Engineering news comes out of Germany.
Besides Germany, which earns special fame due to it's accomplishments, the other countries you mentioned are much bigger than Kenya. I might also add that this is a US site, and therefore slightly slanted towards US news. If something came from the US, we'd like to know more specifically than even that - we'd like to know where in the US.
I have a feeling that if you had discoveries in Sri Lanka and Latvia you'd get "Scientists in Asia discover X," or "Scientists in Europe discover y."
Not to worry. If one African country does something for long enough, and they get a name for themselves that sets them apart from the rest of Africa. Nigeria has proven that.
They get dropped and stepped on once, and the screen breaks.
They fall out of a window, and the screen breaks.
A can of food falls on one, and the screen breaks.
They fall of a desk and hit a sharp object (like, for instance, a pencil poking out of a bookbag), and the screen breaks.
They either need to not use touch screens and use a very thick pane of plastic (this won't work with touch screens, and if you can't figure out why I'm not going to explain it), or they need to get the screens for cheap and be capable of swapping them out for cheap.
I don't think that cheap parts are beyond the realm of feasability, though. A lot of the price of current electronics is in the percieved price. There's not a great reason why a $500 electronic device is more expensive than a $100 device. It's all based on what the market can bear, and in this case, it can obviously bear very little.
Both Yahoo and Google are in the business of selling people to advertisers (who may be people, but are possibly also rats or other vermin). The more clicks to advertisers sites, and the more that advertiser's pages are seen, the more money the search engines make.
This translates into "the more time spent looking at and clicking on links from a search engine, the more money the search engine makes."
The goals are the same, the approach is different.
Use the same units for comparison, won't you? Otherwise, it's difficult to see that your argument makes sense. 36 minutes of an hour on google versus 4.8 hours per month.... Is that every hour for google? Or are you picking certain ones? How many hours a month?
My guess is that people are spending more time at Google per month than at Yahoo per month, and that because of this (among other reasons, i.e. this would be a reason if all other factors were equal), Google is generating more revenue.
Now if simplifying their interface led to more revenue...it might be worth looking into even if it shoots their current business model to pieces.
That doesn't even happen in Windows. Why do you expect it to in Linux?
Ndiswrapper gets pretty much as close as you can get. You don't have to edit anything. Just tell it where the driver is, and it does the rest.
You have to do the same thing in Windows. You always have.
On the other hand, there are versions of Linux that CAN automagically figure out what device is needed for most devices and load it for you. I'd venture that there are even more of these automagical devices for linux than there are for Windows.
Most Windows devices require that you install the drivers yourself. Still, when you have to DIY in Linux, it's usually a lot more of a hassle (if it's even possible) than it is in Windows.
The day the average joe realizes that somebody put an operating system on his computer, that it wasn't created by the people who built his machine, and that it's responsible for most of his computer problems is the day that Microsoft dies.
A product activation is just a little way of saying, "Microsoft is the one who made this crappy product, and we don't care about our customers." They might clue a few people in.
1) I said spanning is a trivial algorithm to implement, not 7z. RTFP. Anyway, though, why are you even arguing this?
7z is open source. It's available for all *nixes, including MacOS X, just like bz2. You want to use it but not implement it? Fine. Use the freely available implementations.
2) Good for you. As I said, there are many, many algorithms that usually beat rar. Obviously, there are select cases that rar will win. Claiming that rar wins in one type of file against a single algorithm does not prove that rar is efficient.
You give compeling arguments why both zip and rar are used: they became popular when the speed/efficiency compromise mattered. Using either now is simply due to habit and culture.
There isn't an advantage for most users.
bzip2, 7z, and many more compression formats are better, and you can find archive spanning programs for every single compression technique because that's such a trivial algorithm to implement.
I can't come up with a reason why you'd use rar OR zip.
No, 'cause your average terrorist is not terribly bright. It is likely that they steal some weapons-grade plutonium, and then pay a scientist to build a nuclear bomb.
Then the scientist will inevitably give them a bomb casing made of old pinball machine parts, and uses the plutonium to build a time machine.
It's a classic scenario. What we really have to worry about is going back in time and accidentally doing something that makes us cease to exist.
One final point, and I'm giving this up. You have this predilection towards the idea that all groups and decisions made by them are mobs. You consider even that the supreme court is swayed by popular opinion. Why is this so? Would you prefer that one person make all decisions that affect society?
1) In some ways the supreme court doesn't determine morality. But not every case that goes before the supreme court is a constitutional question. Actually, most are not - specifically, those we are talking about are not. Mostly, they test cases about lower than constitutional law. You don't think that deciding what is lawful and what is not is an issue of morality? Is morality some esoteric thing that can't be defined for you?
2) I spent three paragraphs explaining it, but you clearly didn't follow me. "Self-evident," or "natural" when used in this sense doesn't mean "decided by a mob." It means, roughly "true because of itself." The fact that 1=1, for example, is self-evident, naturally true. You don't have to decide that this is true. It is true no matter what.
Operationally speaking, the way you test to find that something is self-evident is by making sure that everyone (and I know that "everyone" means "mob" to you, but I don't mean just a majority - I mean everyone with the cognitive ability to understand the concepts involved) would inherently know it to be true - it would be that obvious.
So everyone capable of doing so does not agree that a postulate is true, then it must not be self-evident. It is not naturally true. Therefore, because everyone does not agree that the "natural rights" defined by the constitution are natural rights (i.e. they are not inherent; it is not self-evident that they are true), they must not be natural rights.
We are obviously operating on different definitions of morality, and of what constitutes rights given under "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness." I think I'm in the right here in saying that those things we talked about aren't part of this. Who decides that this is true? The best we have are supreme court justices as far as not being swayed by the mob. They decided that I'm right. I'm arguing using an authority here. Who do you have besides yourself and what you consider morality to give your argument more weight than mine? Why is your argument not subjective and swayed by some personal agenda?
As to what I personally believe, it is that everyone should treat others as they would prefer to be treated if they were in the other person's position, though I don't see this as a natural right. I think a natural right should be one that is obvious and for which there is no reason to deny it. You should be able to walk up to anyone, anywhere in the world and say "Obviously, it's a good idea to let all people ______," and they'd agree. Natural rights should be self-evident truths, because there's no real way to conclusively prove any form of morality besides self-evidence (though you can show weaker arguments that one possible postulate is more likely than another).
Life...maybe. Sometimes, though, a society will feel someone is just too evil, and they must be removed.
Liberty...sounds too much like you're filling the blank with "have whatever they want." That's anarchy, and lots of people end up getting none of the liberty because there's only so much "have" to go around.
Pursuit of happiness...sounds like another "have whatever they want." Same problem.
While I don't think there are natural rights, there are definitely natural laws. Like "don't murder," for instance. As far as I know, every culture thinks murdering is bad. This is self-evident.
But all of this morality stuff is another argument entirely. I believe (and the vast majority of the population is with me on this, including aforementioned years and years of supreme court justices who have repeatedly enforced decisions on this matter) that normal development, i.e. the capacity for the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for himself and those around him requires that he be given boundaries on him during the course of his development. To avoid doing so would limit his constitutionally defined natural rights and the rights of those around him.
Look, this isn't about justice, and it's pretty much always been true of children. Children have never had the rights that their parents have had. You may think otherwise, but you'd be wrong.
Up until the last two hundred years or so all responsibility was given to the parents. Today educators have the same power that parents do. Civil authorities do not have these same rights.
As to your other "civil rights," I don't see anything about "the right to marry/have sex at with anyone" or "the right to stand on someone else's private property when they don't want you there," or any reasonable facsimile in the constitution. These are not rights as defined by our government. They are priveleges. Further, there are lots of clear-cut cases for the existence of these laws, such as statutory rape, and using gas stations as gang turf grounds (frightening away the customers). However, this is beside the real point.
At the very least, you either had horrible parents, are too young, have a particularly bad memory, or haven't completely thought this through. Do you think most children would be better off, or that the world would be more just if they did not have legally allowed boundaries imposed upon their behaviour by their parents?
Go talk to some adults about this. It is a very widely agreed upon principal worldwide that children should have more boundaries than adults.
I don't see the problem. Why, I was just telling two of my more troublesome students, 1183450 and 1183536 that life would be much better for them if they always followed the rules.
Certainly they would get less floggings, and perhaps they might even be allowed to enjoy a small portion of their day at school. Heck, if they were willing to admit that all people in power are gods, I might just do away with the invisible fence and human-collars.
Breaking the rules...that's dangerous thinking, bacon55.
Seriously, though, everyone eventually realizes that their parents (who should be the first authority figure in their lives) are not perfect and sometimes make bad judgement calls when handing out authority. Realizing that the rule-enforcer isn't perfect is more than enough to spur someone to break an unjust rule. Maybe breaking the rules is important for the very, very stupid. For the most part, though, I think the hard part is getting kids to follow rules.
Actually, the courts have repetitively not seen it that way. The constitutionality has been tested on this issue, actually. Why?
You can't be trusted.
Wait! Hear me out!
Educators, along with parents and administrators are responsible for your well-being. You are not. You're still growing up; learning what it means to be human. Presumably, you don't have it all figured out, and may not be competent to do so. To help you along, there are limits on what you can do, as well as restrictions on your freedom to ensure that you're not doing anything you shouldn't be doing. Of course, basic human rights as defined in the constitution are still given to you.
When you grow up, you will be held fully accountable for your own actions, and the alienable rights previously protected by your parents on your behalf will be bestowed upon you.
School administrators are legally allowed to search your person, your locker, and any bags you may be carrying in order to ensure that you and your fellow students are safe. Further, they are allowed, forcably or otherwise, to confine you to particular locations (i.e. classrooms) while school is in session to ensure that you are being productive. They can hunt you down and bring you back to school, too. It is for this previous reason that they need to know where you are. Don't build a straw-man argument of it - not for ever second of every day - only while school is in session. It's their job.
Now as far as being just as much of a citizen...I don't know. Most citizens in good standing with society contribute to it or have done so in the past. Minors are generally not a part of that because they aren't ready or competent to do so.
Maybe you think that you are. There has to be some cutoff point, doesn't there? The Bill of Rights supposedly applies to all full citizens in good standing. If there isn't a cutoff point, then a four year old is a full citizen, and therefore entitled to the right to bear arms. That, to me, is a problem. I'm not even sure how many 18 year olds I'd trust with a gun, and I was one not too long ago.
I submit to you that a minor is less of a citizen in the legal, operation sense of the word. You may mean it some other way, but since we're talking about laws of citizenry, this is the definition that applies here.
Re:I would suggest a modification to "linear"
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
Reread his post. He used random.com. It gives truly random data.
Slashdot Mirror
So I suppose the people that invented Kamikaze (for any dim bulbs out there who aren't afraid to post I should mention that I am not implying that the Chinese did this) considered males a low valued commodity?
Having a one child law isn't just because they have too many males. They have too many people in general. They've always fought through overwelming numbers, but this hasn't made them extremely aggressive. It could be why the government that repeatedly massacred it's people is still in power (i.e. the government knows that most people will not seek violent revolution because of this because human life is less valued).
Today, numbers wouldn't make them extremely effective, either. Technology wins today's wars, and their wealth is on par with the rest of the world in what they can afford to buy for war. They have no increasing reason to be extremely aggressive.
Firefox has a master configuration directory. Pretty much every single aspect of the browser is configurable through that directory. In fact, you can do a lot of things with it there that you can't with IE.
If you want to set a particular action for your people, edit the configuration stuff. There's a lot of documentation on how to do it.
Mozilla is making their browser configuration work pretty much the same as everything else in OSS: through config files, which considering the complexity is probably a good idea.
With a GUI you'd have to play "find the menu item" to get anywhere. Ironically, though, if you want to do that, then you can log in as superuser (admin), and edit this file through the browsers config inteface for most versions of it (and for most parts of the configuration).
But to switch subjects, your "corporations are a much bigger market than home users" comment is almost certianly wrong when you're not talking about an app that you sell to users.
Consider this:
1) Almost everyone who works in a corporate environment has computers to work on at work, and ones for home. Thus, almost every corporate user is also a home user.
2) Not everyone who has a computer is in a corporation. Thus, there are a lot of home users who are not corporate users.
The bottom line is that there must always be more home users than corporate users. Sure, they may not actually want to buy Mozilla, but that doesn't mean there aren't more of them.
It makes sense that Mozilla would concentrate on its primary marketshare. Especially when it does what you want. They probably assume that if you're paid to do global configs, you can figure out how. I suppose that was a wrong assumption in your case.
Are they asking to much of Windows admins?
I'm with you on the "Tomb Raider" thing, but she's Hawaiian.
She's in good physical condition like Wonder Woman, but completely lacking in the pale white skin and blue eyes department. Then again, they did get Arnold to play Conan just the way he was (without the oft-described black hair and blue eyes from the books). Maybe it could work anyway...
Nah. More people have seen Linda Carter, the JLA cartoons, or the comics than have read the Conan novels.
When is this insurance analogy going to happen?
People have been smoking longer than there have been insurance companies.
There's still no laws against it, and as far as I know there aren't any penalties.
Or are you saying its the same in that its always going to happen but never actually happens?
You're to be describing this as if it's some kind of custom hardware with many limitations.
This could not be further from the truth. FPGAs are more flexible than any of their counterparts. FPGA stands for "field programmable gate array," and are basically a matrix of memory elements (at the very least latches) connected to gates that configured to be a particular type of gate via a ROM or something similar.
It's kind of like a chip emulator written in hardware. You may be wondering why we don't use these all the time. First, they're a lot more expensive, bigger, and more power consuming than their one-chip cousins. Second (as if that isn't really enough), they're usually 2-5 times slower than the same logic on a custom chip.
So the big question is why should we use them? What improvements can they give that normal chips can't?
The big gain is when you want to optimize the hardware for a specific application and be able to change it. These were used in high end digital video cards to be able to handle whatever kind of signal is actually output by whatever kind of camera you've got (I can only assume this is still the case, but I stopped keeping track about 2000).
I don't know if the people who wrote this thing take advantage of this idea within their design, but it's a possibility.
Interesting point. Personally, there is a veritable plethora of buttons that I'd like to see on my browser.
Of course, the usual buttons must be there: back, forward, reload, stop, home, but that's not really enough, is it?
I think a resize button would be good. You know, to change the size of my monitor. Some pages would be a lot better if the monitor was bigger.
Also, I'd like a "more interesting" button to fix those unappealing pages. If this is unfeasable, I would settle for a "summon magic dancing monkeys" button. Oh, and I think they should move the turn off the internet button into the browser. I'm tired of having to go to that page to do it.
At the very least, there should be a large, omnious red button entitled "TOTAL ANNHILIATION" with the words "WARNING: NEVER PRESS THIS BUTTON" written below so that I can know I'm not just browsing - I'm Extreme browsing.
I can list dozens of things I love about Linux. There are also a few things I love about Windows that I don't find in Linux:
Windows has VBR packet writing for CDR and DVDR available (not via Microsoft, but the Windows kernel makes it possible...unlike the Linux kernel), and has since around 2000.
They have a C++ tool that can do RAD including a fully integrated editor and GUI builder.
They include multilingual, blind, deaf, and handicapped support.
There is a unified font system, and adding a font simply means copying it into a specific folder.
They also have tightly integrated apps, but I consider that more of a security risk than a feature...
Anyway, the point is that there are things that Windows has done well.
That's overkill. Phone lines aren't power lines.
Jacking into the junction box isn't any harder than making an ethernet cord (which just takes a spool of CAT-5, a crimping tool, some vampire clips, and an IQ somewhere around Forrest Gump's).
In fact, a lot of junction boxes have rj-11 jacks on them so you don't have to do anything to the wires. You'd just disconnect the main from the outgoing line and connect it to the ata adapter.
This is a large country. There are plenty of places here for which everyone who is working is working in an IT related area. For them, internet access is a necessity.
For those places, it's a utility. Now these places are few and far between, and that's exactly why there isn't wireless access everywhere.
Seems to me like these kind of places should get the Wi-Fi they want.
HAM radio operators hoping to contact distant life for the altruistic goal of communication aren't nearly as annoying as advertisers who want to make a buck off of every sentient being in the universe.
I'm going to be very angry when some superpowerful aliens show up to put themselves on our "do not call " list with an Earth-destroying weapon.
My teacher was even smarter. You could use any program that you wrote yourself. There's no way you can write a decent program that does any kind of math algorithm without understanding it very well.
I took him up on the offer. Later I sent in one of the programs I wrote during his class to a scholarship commission and got a scholarship for it.
There are a lot more people in all the countries you named. Also, Germany is special. A lot of Engineering news comes out of Germany.
Besides Germany, which earns special fame due to it's accomplishments, the other countries you mentioned are much bigger than Kenya. I might also add that this is a US site, and therefore slightly slanted towards US news. If something came from the US, we'd like to know more specifically than even that - we'd like to know where in the US.
I have a feeling that if you had discoveries in Sri Lanka and Latvia you'd get "Scientists in Asia discover X," or "Scientists in Europe discover y."
Not to worry. If one African country does something for long enough, and they get a name for themselves that sets them apart from the rest of Africa. Nigeria has proven that.
They get dropped and stepped on once, and the screen breaks.
They fall out of a window, and the screen breaks.
A can of food falls on one, and the screen breaks.
They fall of a desk and hit a sharp object (like, for instance, a pencil poking out of a bookbag), and the screen breaks.
They either need to not use touch screens and use a very thick pane of plastic (this won't work with touch screens, and if you can't figure out why I'm not going to explain it), or they need to get the screens for cheap and be capable of swapping them out for cheap.
I don't think that cheap parts are beyond the realm of feasability, though. A lot of the price of current electronics is in the percieved price. There's not a great reason why a $500 electronic device is more expensive than a $100 device. It's all based on what the market can bear, and in this case, it can obviously bear very little.
Both Yahoo and Google are in the business of selling people to advertisers (who may be people, but are possibly also rats or other vermin). The more clicks to advertisers sites, and the more that advertiser's pages are seen, the more money the search engines make.
This translates into "the more time spent looking at and clicking on links from a search engine, the more money the search engine makes."
The goals are the same, the approach is different.
Use the same units for comparison, won't you? Otherwise, it's difficult to see that your argument makes sense. 36 minutes of an hour on google versus 4.8 hours per month.... Is that every hour for google? Or are you picking certain ones? How many hours a month?
My guess is that people are spending more time at Google per month than at Yahoo per month, and that because of this (among other reasons, i.e. this would be a reason if all other factors were equal), Google is generating more revenue.
Now if simplifying their interface led to more revenue...it might be worth looking into even if it shoots their current business model to pieces.
That doesn't even happen in Windows. Why do you expect it to in Linux?
Ndiswrapper gets pretty much as close as you can get. You don't have to edit anything. Just tell it where the driver is, and it does the rest.
You have to do the same thing in Windows. You always have.
On the other hand, there are versions of Linux that CAN automagically figure out what device is needed for most devices and load it for you. I'd venture that there are even more of these automagical devices for linux than there are for Windows.
Most Windows devices require that you install the drivers yourself. Still, when you have to DIY in Linux, it's usually a lot more of a hassle (if it's even possible) than it is in Windows.
The day the average joe realizes that somebody put an operating system on his computer, that it wasn't created by the people who built his machine, and that it's responsible for most of his computer problems is the day that Microsoft dies.
A product activation is just a little way of saying, "Microsoft is the one who made this crappy product, and we don't care about our customers." They might clue a few people in.
1) I said spanning is a trivial algorithm to implement, not 7z. RTFP. Anyway, though, why are you even arguing this?
7z is open source. It's available for all *nixes, including MacOS X, just like bz2. You want to use it but not implement it? Fine. Use the freely available implementations.
2) Good for you. As I said, there are many, many algorithms that usually beat rar. Obviously, there are select cases that rar will win. Claiming that rar wins in one type of file against a single algorithm does not prove that rar is efficient.
You give compeling arguments why both zip and rar are used: they became popular when the speed/efficiency compromise mattered. Using either now is simply due to habit and culture.
There isn't an advantage for most users.
bzip2, 7z, and many more compression formats are better, and you can find archive spanning programs for every single compression technique because that's such a trivial algorithm to implement.
I can't come up with a reason why you'd use rar OR zip.
No, 'cause your average terrorist is not terribly bright. It is likely that they steal some weapons-grade plutonium, and then pay a scientist to build a nuclear bomb.
Then the scientist will inevitably give them a bomb casing made of old pinball machine parts, and uses the plutonium to build a time machine.
It's a classic scenario. What we really have to worry about is going back in time and accidentally doing something that makes us cease to exist.
One final point, and I'm giving this up. You have this predilection towards the idea that all groups and decisions made by them are mobs. You consider even that the supreme court is swayed by popular opinion. Why is this so? Would you prefer that one person make all decisions that affect society?
1) In some ways the supreme court doesn't determine morality. But not every case that goes before the supreme court is a constitutional question. Actually, most are not - specifically, those we are talking about are not. Mostly, they test cases about lower than constitutional law. You don't think that deciding what is lawful and what is not is an issue of morality? Is morality some esoteric thing that can't be defined for you?
2) I spent three paragraphs explaining it, but you clearly didn't follow me. "Self-evident," or "natural" when used in this sense doesn't mean "decided by a mob." It means, roughly "true because of itself." The fact that 1=1, for example, is self-evident, naturally true. You don't have to decide that this is true. It is true no matter what.
Operationally speaking, the way you test to find that something is self-evident is by making sure that everyone (and I know that "everyone" means "mob" to you, but I don't mean just a majority - I mean everyone with the cognitive ability to understand the concepts involved) would inherently know it to be true - it would be that obvious.
So everyone capable of doing so does not agree that a postulate is true, then it must not be self-evident. It is not naturally true. Therefore, because everyone does not agree that the "natural rights" defined by the constitution are natural rights (i.e. they are not inherent; it is not self-evident that they are true), they must not be natural rights.
We are obviously operating on different definitions of morality, and of what constitutes rights given under "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness." I think I'm in the right here in saying that those things we talked about aren't part of this. Who decides that this is true? The best we have are supreme court justices as far as not being swayed by the mob. They decided that I'm right. I'm arguing using an authority here. Who do you have besides yourself and what you consider morality to give your argument more weight than mine? Why is your argument not subjective and swayed by some personal agenda?
As to what I personally believe, it is that everyone should treat others as they would prefer to be treated if they were in the other person's position, though I don't see this as a natural right. I think a natural right should be one that is obvious and for which there is no reason to deny it. You should be able to walk up to anyone, anywhere in the world and say "Obviously, it's a good idea to let all people ______," and they'd agree. Natural rights should be self-evident truths, because there's no real way to conclusively prove any form of morality besides self-evidence (though you can show weaker arguments that one possible postulate is more likely than another).
Life...maybe. Sometimes, though, a society will feel someone is just too evil, and they must be removed.
Liberty...sounds too much like you're filling the blank with "have whatever they want." That's anarchy, and lots of people end up getting none of the liberty because there's only so much "have" to go around.
Pursuit of happiness...sounds like another "have whatever they want." Same problem.
While I don't think there are natural rights, there are definitely natural laws. Like "don't murder," for instance. As far as I know, every culture thinks murdering is bad. This is self-evident.
But all of this morality stuff is another argument entirely. I believe (and the vast majority of the population is with me on this, including aforementioned years and years of supreme court justices who have repeatedly enforced decisions on this matter) that normal development, i.e. the capacity for the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for himself and those around him requires that he be given boundaries on him during the course of his development. To avoid doing so would limit his constitutionally defined natural rights and the rights of those around him.
Look, this isn't about justice, and it's pretty much always been true of children. Children have never had the rights that their parents have had. You may think otherwise, but you'd be wrong.
Up until the last two hundred years or so all responsibility was given to the parents. Today educators have the same power that parents do. Civil authorities do not have these same rights.
As to your other "civil rights," I don't see anything about "the right to marry/have sex at with anyone" or "the right to stand on someone else's private property when they don't want you there," or any reasonable facsimile in the constitution. These are not rights as defined by our government. They are priveleges. Further, there are lots of clear-cut cases for the existence of these laws, such as statutory rape, and using gas stations as gang turf grounds (frightening away the customers). However, this is beside the real point.
At the very least, you either had horrible parents, are too young, have a particularly bad memory, or haven't completely thought this through. Do you think most children would be better off, or that the world would be more just if they did not have legally allowed boundaries imposed upon their behaviour by their parents?
Go talk to some adults about this. It is a very widely agreed upon principal worldwide that children should have more boundaries than adults.
I don't see the problem. Why, I was just telling two of my more troublesome students, 1183450 and 1183536 that life would be much better for them if they always followed the rules.
Certainly they would get less floggings, and perhaps they might even be allowed to enjoy a small portion of their day at school. Heck, if they were willing to admit that all people in power are gods, I might just do away with the invisible fence and human-collars.
Breaking the rules...that's dangerous thinking, bacon55.
Seriously, though, everyone eventually realizes that their parents (who should be the first authority figure in their lives) are not perfect and sometimes make bad judgement calls when handing out authority. Realizing that the rule-enforcer isn't perfect is more than enough to spur someone to break an unjust rule. Maybe breaking the rules is important for the very, very stupid. For the most part, though, I think the hard part is getting kids to follow rules.
Actually, the courts have repetitively not seen it that way. The constitutionality has been tested on this issue, actually. Why?
You can't be trusted.
Wait! Hear me out!
Educators, along with parents and administrators are responsible for your well-being. You are not. You're still growing up; learning what it means to be human. Presumably, you don't have it all figured out, and may not be competent to do so. To help you along, there are limits on what you can do, as well as restrictions on your freedom to ensure that you're not doing anything you shouldn't be doing. Of course, basic human rights as defined in the constitution are still given to you.
When you grow up, you will be held fully accountable for your own actions, and the alienable rights previously protected by your parents on your behalf will be bestowed upon you.
School administrators are legally allowed to search your person, your locker, and any bags you may be carrying in order to ensure that you and your fellow students are safe. Further, they are allowed, forcably or otherwise, to confine you to particular locations (i.e. classrooms) while school is in session to ensure that you are being productive. They can hunt you down and bring you back to school, too. It is for this previous reason that they need to know where you are. Don't build a straw-man argument of it - not for ever second of every day - only while school is in session. It's their job.
Now as far as being just as much of a citizen...I don't know. Most citizens in good standing with society contribute to it or have done so in the past. Minors are generally not a part of that because they aren't ready or competent to do so.
Maybe you think that you are. There has to be some cutoff point, doesn't there? The Bill of Rights supposedly applies to all full citizens in good standing. If there isn't a cutoff point, then a four year old is a full citizen, and therefore entitled to the right to bear arms. That, to me, is a problem. I'm not even sure how many 18 year olds I'd trust with a gun, and I was one not too long ago.
I submit to you that a minor is less of a citizen in the legal, operation sense of the word. You may mean it some other way, but since we're talking about laws of citizenry, this is the definition that applies here.
Reread his post. He used random.com. It gives truly random data.