Yes, precisely. My needs a bit more complicated than a simple email server, but it was still a great benefit for me when I took down my home-run server and instead rented some rackspace in a professional datacenter. I'd never bring that stuff back home. I get *far* better bandwidth, and fewer headaches and greater reliability this way.
It is. But the nails keep going in nonetheless. People who want instant gratification will be disappointed, but the ultimate goal gets a little big closer every day.
My current desktop is still Windows, but my new laptop is a MacBook, and although I only got one after it became possible to boot Windows on it, and immediately went out and bought Parallels, I almost never use it anymore. When my desktop starts getting too long in the tooth, it's become a lot more likely it won't be replaced by another Windows box again...
One of these days, someone should invent something that can convey information like RFID, but not anyone can read it. In fact, make it so that it can be only read when I take it out and present it to the reader, rather than readable by anyone without be uncovering it. That makes sure only those I want can read it, and keeps it safe from being read without my knowledge, much less consent.
I think I have an idea! I'm gonna go patent it now. I'll call it a "barcode"! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Well, you'd be surprised to learn that bash isn't even the tip of the iceberg in Linux. There's also sh, csh, ash, dash, ksh, and I don't know how many other shell options I can't recall just now.
zsh! Of course, I use zsh under MacOS X and under Windows (cygwin) as well as under Linux (and in fact have done all three within the last hour). It's great having a consistent user interface between all the operating systems I continually use.:D
Since when did what shell you use become fodder of OS wars? It's just an application that runs under the OS, has nothing to do with the OS itself...
I think the big deal is this: I suspect that the system you're using at work works by keeping older versions of each modified file, so if I modify 1 byte in a 1MB file, the filesystem uses 1MB for the current version and 1MB for the version inside.snapshots/yesterday/, whereas if this was implemented on the filesystem level, it would just use one (most likely 4K) block.
I'm dreading Diablo III. The Blizzard North that made Diablo/Diablo II is long gone, and I'm dreading to see what travesty the current Blizzard comes up with to slap the Diablo brand name on.
I'm suspecting Diablo III will be to Diablo II what Master of Orion III was to Master of Orion II.
This doesn't refute anything that was put forth before. It doesn't demonstrate any causality whatsoever.
Neither did the cell-phone argument. The cell phone argument can't be refuted because it didn't put anything solid forward to begin with, it was more or less self-refuting. At least this, although inconclusive, is still a lot more solid that what we had before.
From TFA: "Faced with these numbers, the masters of determining truth from error cited the "large sample size" and the 4% difference in the results in confidently concluding the yawn seed had a significant effect on the subjects and, therefore, the yawn is decisively contagious."
Huh? IIRC, the MythBusters thought this was inconclusive. They called the myth "plausible", but absolutely did not do what the TFA claims here. It my recollection of this particular episode flawed?
Wikipedia seems to agree with my recollection, but I'm not sure that says much...:p
Just how sure are we that the universe is comprehensible?
It's one of the axioms of science. It's not a question of being sure, it's a question of necessarily assuming it's true in order to proceed. There are basically three axioms you assume any time you're doing science, because there'd be absolutely no point to doing it if they aren't, and it appears science is useful, so we roll with the assumptions despite them being unproven (and in fact unprovable, even in principle).
First, we assume that nature is lawful. Things happen in accord with these laws and nothing happens except in accord with these laws. That doesn't necessarily mean the universe is deterministic or anything like that -- laws can be probabilistic, after all. In any case, since the point of science is to determine what the laws of the nature are, they better be there or the whole game is a fool's quest.
Second, we assume that the laws of nature are universal -- they're good any time, any place. If something behaves differently in one circumstance than another, this doesn't mean the laws change, it just means the laws are complex and take factors into account that make those two circumstances different with regards to them. We just need to understand the law completely to know why. This assumption needs to be true, or else there's absolutely no point in making observations or conducting experiments, since they would only tell you something about the laws in that place at that time. For observation and experiment to be useful, it must be the case that the laws apply in other places and times than the time and place of the observation.
And third, we assume that the laws of nature are comprehensible and discoverable. Again, the whole scientific endeavor is devoted to discovering these laws, and that's simply not possible if they aren't discoverable (and our being unable to comprehend them would preclude us from discovering them).
One could argue one doesn't have to believe these things are true to do science, but any time one does science, one is necessarily accepting them as axioms, assuming them to be true for the purposes of doing science, at least for the moment. I suppose you could ultimately view the scientific endeavor as a whole as a test of these three things. If it succeeds, it will have proven them true. If it ultimately fails in the end, perhaps they weren't. But of course you can never know that, it may be they were true, we just didn't manage to find all the answers, but in principle we could have. One can never be sure of success, either, so in the end, we'll never truly know.
But they've sure proven useful so far. If nothing else, one can make a mighty powerful pragmatic argument for thinking them true.
Parse the sentence more carefully. It never said the black holes spawn anything, it says the cluster does (and the summary more carefully says the "cluster of galaxies").
After all the most important thing to make people feel like the government is protecting them, not provided verifiable protection.
Well, since the government can't protect you, but voters demand they do so anyway, they really have no choice but to pretend. Being honest with voters is a sure way to lose elections.
They don't. Evolution merely rewards the best fuckers. Being intelligent may give someone an edge at that, but it's not the only way to get an edge, and not necessarily the best one, either.
Why is it that any time people honestly suggest a way to make a capitalistic system work better, someone injects this particular non-sequitur?
Apparently, if you don't believe that the status quo is perfect in every possible way, you must be a communist, since any attempts at criticism or suggestions for improvement are inevitably met by this rejoinder.
Err, people don't register websites, they register domain names.
attach a clause saying they have x amount of days to put up an actual website
So the domain names are no longer allowed to serve as aliases for IP addresses? They can only server as aliases for websites? That kinda sucks.
assuming there is a port 80 attached to that domain.
Huh? That doesn't even make sense. Do you understand what a port is, and what a domain is? Apparently not, since understanding of those two terms would preclude making any assertions of having one attached to another, being entirely orthogonal things.
...and while you're at it, try the company's CEO for crimes against humanity and execute him.
Seriously, if you're going to make the punishment so wildly severe compared to the harm, why stop with a wimpy little lifetime ban on registration? Give 'em a lifetime ban on RL. >:D
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, precisely. My needs a bit more complicated than a simple email server, but it was still a great benefit for me when I took down my home-run server and instead rented some rackspace in a professional datacenter. I'd never bring that stuff back home. I get *far* better bandwidth, and fewer headaches and greater reliability this way.
If the coffin is a freaking mile long.
It is. But the nails keep going in nonetheless. People who want instant gratification will be disappointed, but the ultimate goal gets a little big closer every day.
My current desktop is still Windows, but my new laptop is a MacBook, and although I only got one after it became possible to boot Windows on it, and immediately went out and bought Parallels, I almost never use it anymore. When my desktop starts getting too long in the tooth, it's become a lot more likely it won't be replaced by another Windows box again...
Sooner or later, it all adds up.
One of these days, someone should invent something that can convey information like RFID, but not anyone can read it. In fact, make it so that it can be only read when I take it out and present it to the reader, rather than readable by anyone without be uncovering it. That makes sure only those I want can read it, and keeps it safe from being read without my knowledge, much less consent.
I think I have an idea! I'm gonna go patent it now. I'll call it a "barcode"! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Well, you'd be surprised to learn that bash isn't even the tip of the iceberg in Linux. There's also sh, csh, ash, dash, ksh, and I don't know how many other shell options I can't recall just now.
zsh! Of course, I use zsh under MacOS X and under Windows (cygwin) as well as under Linux (and in fact have done all three within the last hour). It's great having a consistent user interface between all the operating systems I continually use. :D
Since when did what shell you use become fodder of OS wars? It's just an application that runs under the OS, has nothing to do with the OS itself...
If IT problems drew blood from those who caused them, there would be fewer IT problems. ;)
I think the big deal is this: I suspect that the system you're using at work works by keeping older versions of each modified file, so if I modify 1 byte in a 1MB file, the filesystem uses 1MB for the current version and 1MB for the version inside .snapshots/yesterday/, whereas if this was implemented on the filesystem level, it would just use one (most likely 4K) block.
How long was the Hundred-Years War? ;)
I miss my SunOS... :p
Compared to Windows, Linux seems stable, but compared to most commercial operating systems its kinda flaky...
I'm dreading Diablo III. The Blizzard North that made Diablo/Diablo II is long gone, and I'm dreading to see what travesty the current Blizzard comes up with to slap the Diablo brand name on.
I'm suspecting Diablo III will be to Diablo II what Master of Orion III was to Master of Orion II.
This doesn't refute anything that was put forth before. It doesn't demonstrate any causality whatsoever.
Neither did the cell-phone argument. The cell phone argument can't be refuted because it didn't put anything solid forward to begin with, it was more or less self-refuting. At least this, although inconclusive, is still a lot more solid that what we had before.
confidence (n) 1. The feeling one has before one understands the problem.
I'm not saying Jobs would have done a better job than Scully and his sucessors
Well, he couldn't possibly have done worse. I'm not sure if that's even humanly possible...
From TFA: "Faced with these numbers, the masters of determining truth from error cited the "large sample size" and the 4% difference in the results in confidently concluding the yawn seed had a significant effect on the subjects and, therefore, the yawn is decisively contagious."
Huh? IIRC, the MythBusters thought this was inconclusive. They called the myth "plausible", but absolutely did not do what the TFA claims here. It my recollection of this particular episode flawed?
Wikipedia seems to agree with my recollection, but I'm not sure that says much... :p
Whoosh!
Just how sure are we that the universe is comprehensible?
It's one of the axioms of science. It's not a question of being sure, it's a question of necessarily assuming it's true in order to proceed. There are basically three axioms you assume any time you're doing science, because there'd be absolutely no point to doing it if they aren't, and it appears science is useful, so we roll with the assumptions despite them being unproven (and in fact unprovable, even in principle).
First, we assume that nature is lawful. Things happen in accord with these laws and nothing happens except in accord with these laws. That doesn't necessarily mean the universe is deterministic or anything like that -- laws can be probabilistic, after all. In any case, since the point of science is to determine what the laws of the nature are, they better be there or the whole game is a fool's quest.
Second, we assume that the laws of nature are universal -- they're good any time, any place. If something behaves differently in one circumstance than another, this doesn't mean the laws change, it just means the laws are complex and take factors into account that make those two circumstances different with regards to them. We just need to understand the law completely to know why. This assumption needs to be true, or else there's absolutely no point in making observations or conducting experiments, since they would only tell you something about the laws in that place at that time. For observation and experiment to be useful, it must be the case that the laws apply in other places and times than the time and place of the observation.
And third, we assume that the laws of nature are comprehensible and discoverable. Again, the whole scientific endeavor is devoted to discovering these laws, and that's simply not possible if they aren't discoverable (and our being unable to comprehend them would preclude us from discovering them).
One could argue one doesn't have to believe these things are true to do science, but any time one does science, one is necessarily accepting them as axioms, assuming them to be true for the purposes of doing science, at least for the moment. I suppose you could ultimately view the scientific endeavor as a whole as a test of these three things. If it succeeds, it will have proven them true. If it ultimately fails in the end, perhaps they weren't. But of course you can never know that, it may be they were true, we just didn't manage to find all the answers, but in principle we could have. One can never be sure of success, either, so in the end, we'll never truly know.
But they've sure proven useful so far. If nothing else, one can make a mighty powerful pragmatic argument for thinking them true.
Parse the sentence more carefully. It never said the black holes spawn anything, it says the cluster does (and the summary more carefully says the "cluster of galaxies").
After all the most important thing to make people feel like the government is protecting them, not provided verifiable protection.
Well, since the government can't protect you, but voters demand they do so anyway, they really have no choice but to pretend. Being honest with voters is a sure way to lose elections.
Hehe. You're not under the misimpression that the United States is a free country, are you?
Screw lightsabers, I want replicators :D
Yikes! Be careful what you wish for!
He meant Star Trek replicators! Not Stargate replicators!
Oh dear...
They don't. Evolution merely rewards the best fuckers. Being intelligent may give someone an edge at that, but it's not the only way to get an edge, and not necessarily the best one, either.
Do Santa and Jesus have the same middle name?
Communism is dead
Why is it that any time people honestly suggest a way to make a capitalistic system work better, someone injects this particular non-sequitur?
Apparently, if you don't believe that the status quo is perfect in every possible way, you must be a communist, since any attempts at criticism or suggestions for improvement are inevitably met by this rejoinder.
Never heard of a domain transfer?
I'm sure I could buy it back for an outrageous price if I really wanted (or needed) it.
This is commonly referred to as "the stupid tax". You do something stupid, you end up having to pay for it.
If someone wants to register a website...
Err, people don't register websites, they register domain names.
attach a clause saying they have x amount of days to put up an actual website
So the domain names are no longer allowed to serve as aliases for IP addresses? They can only server as aliases for websites? That kinda sucks.
assuming there is a port 80 attached to that domain.
Huh? That doesn't even make sense. Do you understand what a port is, and what a domain is? Apparently not, since understanding of those two terms would preclude making any assertions of having one attached to another, being entirely orthogonal things.
...and while you're at it, try the company's CEO for crimes against humanity and execute him.
Seriously, if you're going to make the punishment so wildly severe compared to the harm, why stop with a wimpy little lifetime ban on registration? Give 'em a lifetime ban on RL. >:D