If what you say is true then we would all be programming in assembly.
This makes no more sense than saying: if what you said was true, we would all be programming in Java. Acknowledging efficiency as an important consideration, even making it the most important consideration, does not make it the only consideration and does not require a move to assembly language.
And by the way - you're dead wrong on Linux being efficient.
Reread. He complained that it wasn't efficient -- he just said it wasn't as bloated as Windoze...
So the whole ethernet idea didn't even come into the picture in my comment.
Yes, that was more or less the poster's point -- you said your system old x86 system had a problem with 19.2 modems, so this would make the Internet fun [and I'm assuming you were using sarcasm here]. If your system for some reason has trouble handling a 19.2 modem (don't know why, mine always worked fine for me even up to 38.4 -- perhaps you had a substandard, unbuffered serial chip), just drop in an Ethernet card, as the poster suggested, to get around the problem. You can definately get a lot faster than 19.2kbps that way.
Liebnitz developed a calculus notation but he certainly was not 'independent' of Newton.
Depends on how its meant. Yes, Leibniz did read and even annotate Newton's papers, and it was working on ways to mathematically solve these sorts of problems that Leibniz invented his calculus. But saying Leibniz's invention of calculus was independent of Newton's is quite possibly (some would even say probably) entirely correct. One does not fail to say email was invented independently of the United States Postal Service, merely because the inventor of email used the mail and was even inspired by it to invent email.
The issue is somewhat clouded because of the whitewash report put out by the Royal society on who should get the credit which Newton actually wrote.
Not to mention the anonymous pamphlet accusing Newton of plagerism that was later discovered to have been written by Leibniz.
Really, the whole issue is so murky, anyone who thinks he knows the truth of the matter is a fool.
Just to add another data point into the debate, on the philosophical front, Leibniz has also be accused of plagerizing from Spinoza...
I've found that on odd hardware, MS-DOS and LoadLin form the single most reliable boot method you can find. I've seen computers that make LILO barf, I'm typing on a computer that confounds ISOLINUX, and my laptop at home confounds SYSLINUX and won't run GRUB to save it's life, but LoadLin works everywhere...
Hehe, no, but he (Senator Norm Coleman [R-MN]) did admit he did once, when Napster first came out, download some songs himself, specifically, some Bob Dylan...
So, what do you call someone who matches your description except they only have a 3 foot chain attached to their wallet?
Not a serious question, of course -- just pointing out how silly your point is. Your overly restrictive definition of "punk" would exclude about 90% of the punks in the world. He's not stereotyping himself, you're just *way* overgeneralizing...
Actually, the old joke was (this was during the ARM days, before there was a real standard, and I'm afraid I forgot who said it), every time you think you've learned C++, you find Bjarne has added new features that aren't in you're compiler. It's been incremented, but you're still using the old value...
Obviously you've never looked through the index of CLtL2, much less read it. LISP hackers are a laugh a minute compared to humorless C-language-family hackers, at least based on the tomes they write...
Dear fellow patriots: It is with great urgency and sincerity that I bring to your attention the Mandrake Boycott.
You may not be aware that Mandrake Linux is a French product. [...]
One quick way to tell an idiot from a patriot is that the latter doesn't automatically assume you'll feel the same way they do about a particular issue just because you happen to be a patriot.
Of course, I use Debian, but I wish Mandrake well. Viva la Mandrake!
At any rate, the first point I want to make is that someone has to be the gatekeeper. In most matters, it is the judge.
Hey, ya know, it's kinda cool that the name we give them, "Judge", is also a verb that describes precisely the activity we specifically employ them to engage in! What a wonderful coincidence!
(Am I the only one not bothered by the fact that we've basically said we want the judging to be done by the judges?)
Yeah, yeah, I know, Thomas Kuhn, postmodernism, yadda yadda... the above is the idealized way science works - reality is more complex and slow, but by and large peer review works.
The problem is not the idealized view of science here, but rather the different standards applied. If we're going to take the idealized view of science, how it ought to work (and I think more or less does over the long haul, despite the short-term problems), to be fair, take the same view of the law. If you do, you find they don't have fundamental disagreements that interact badly.
For example, you say Science cares about reality. You fail in the next point by not crediting Law with the exact same concern. You say all they're concerned with is a believable story to satisfy the audience (jury). But the exact same thing as true of Science (the audience being their peers). In both cases, you could characterize their behavior as concern with constructing a "believable story", but in both cases, they're doing this in order to try to find the truth of the matter.
Similarly, Science stubbornly rejects revision, just as Law does, and for very good reason. One does not throw out a successful theory on a whim. Again the two are quite alike.
As for the first point, I would just flat out deny the claim regarding "external consistency". Inconsistency with observation is more often that not a problem of internal consistency. The observations themselves are too theory-laden to argue otherwise in most cases. And in any case, scientists are very, very quick to look for alternate explanations when things don't come out right, and very, very slow to indict previous theory and observations. In effect, scientists are quite concerned with precedent, as are judges.
The two are not the same thing, but they are alike in most of the ways you're claiming they're different...
How is the "Fast Food" trial an example of this? I agree it's a stupid lawsuit, but it has nothing to do with the science involved...
As for the "Greenhouse Theory", I'd ask which particular theory you're refering to and how it's been refuted, but I suspect I'd be feeding a troll, and again it would be off-topic entirely...
My own observation, having worked in big companies, small companies, and in government, is that a company is screwed about the time the President/CEO/Owner can't recognize any random employee he encounters on the street. Once an organization reaches that size (say, roughly, 200 people), it turns into an inefficient bureaucratic mess. [Incidently, there's no real difference between governments and large corporations WRT efficiency -- it's the size and the "divisional" culture that arrises with it that causes the inefficiency, not public vs. private sector, existence vs. lack of profit motive, or any other of the dipshit theories you always hear out of politicians.] Until it reaches that critical mass, everyone knows what's best for the company and works for it. Once it surpasses that point, everyone knows what's best for their part of the company, but loses site of any big picture -- this includes the CEO's and others who supposedly manage the whole shebang.
What's this got to do with the question? It's the whole "evil empire" attitude that emerges from the bottom when the top is now some distant entity rather than the guy in the office at the end of the hall. I don't think "capital" has anything to do with it per se, save that it's a concern to that distant imperial capital but not a concern to the subject lands...
I would disagree, simply based on the rather long development cycles at Blizzard. These games are in production for years before they get out the door. The regular Blizzard guys have been working on WC3 and WoW for some time now. Diablo II was released quite a few years ago. What have the Blizzard North guys been working on since then? [Certainly not the 1.10 patch, we know that much...:)] If there *is* going to be another Diablo sequel, very likely it's already well out of the design stage and half-coded by now. The departure of these people does not affect the likelihood of a sequel at all, since if there is going to be one, they're already got it more than half done, they're not going to abandon it now...
I was thinking along those lines the other day, then I booted up the old Diablo and started playing a bit. Ugh -- it's damn near unplayable after you've gotten used to D2. Or maybe you prefer that style and it's just me. But they're definately quite different, particularly in terms of "feel", despite their commonalities...
Slashdot Mirror
This makes no more sense than saying: if what you said was true, we would all be programming in Java. Acknowledging efficiency as an important consideration, even making it the most important consideration, does not make it the only consideration and does not require a move to assembly language.
And by the way - you're dead wrong on Linux being efficient.
Reread. He complained that it wasn't efficient -- he just said it wasn't as bloated as Windoze...
Yes, I'd much rather have a fat, flightless bird... ;)
[OT: Why is Tux so fat? Real penguins aren't that fat? What has Linus been feeding him?]
Yes, that was more or less the poster's point -- you said your system old x86 system had a problem with 19.2 modems, so this would make the Internet fun [and I'm assuming you were using sarcasm here]. If your system for some reason has trouble handling a 19.2 modem (don't know why, mine always worked fine for me even up to 38.4 -- perhaps you had a substandard, unbuffered serial chip), just drop in an Ethernet card, as the poster suggested, to get around the problem. You can definately get a lot faster than 19.2kbps that way.
Depends on how its meant. Yes, Leibniz did read and even annotate Newton's papers, and it was working on ways to mathematically solve these sorts of problems that Leibniz invented his calculus. But saying Leibniz's invention of calculus was independent of Newton's is quite possibly (some would even say probably) entirely correct. One does not fail to say email was invented independently of the United States Postal Service, merely because the inventor of email used the mail and was even inspired by it to invent email.
The issue is somewhat clouded because of the whitewash report put out by the Royal society on who should get the credit which Newton actually wrote.
Not to mention the anonymous pamphlet accusing Newton of plagerism that was later discovered to have been written by Leibniz.
Really, the whole issue is so murky, anyone who thinks he knows the truth of the matter is a fool.
Just to add another data point into the debate, on the philosophical front, Leibniz has also be accused of plagerizing from Spinoza...
I was under the impression Leibniz pretty much gets sole credit for inventing calculus, except in most English-speaking countries.
I've found that on odd hardware, MS-DOS and LoadLin form the single most reliable boot method you can find. I've seen computers that make LILO barf, I'm typing on a computer that confounds ISOLINUX, and my laptop at home confounds SYSLINUX and won't run GRUB to save it's life, but LoadLin works everywhere...
Hehe, no, but he (Senator Norm Coleman [R-MN]) did admit he did once, when Napster first came out, download some songs himself, specifically, some Bob Dylan...
No. However, it interested the editors of Slashdot, and that does (and is in fact the only thing that can) mean it belongs on Slashdot.
Not a serious question, of course -- just pointing out how silly your point is. Your overly restrictive definition of "punk" would exclude about 90% of the punks in the world. He's not stereotyping himself, you're just *way* overgeneralizing...
I thought those were responsible for the other tail (comets have two tails, one [the photon generated one?] is just a lot fainter)...
Actually, the old joke was (this was during the ARM days, before there was a real standard, and I'm afraid I forgot who said it), every time you think you've learned C++, you find Bjarne has added new features that aren't in you're compiler. It's been incremented, but you're still using the old value...
Obviously you've never looked through the index of CLtL2, much less read it. LISP hackers are a laugh a minute compared to humorless C-language-family hackers, at least based on the tomes they write...
Sadly, it got +4 in moderation, too. All this time, I never knew being a language Nazi was good for one's karma...
You may not be aware that Mandrake Linux is a French product. [...]
One quick way to tell an idiot from a patriot is that the latter doesn't automatically assume you'll feel the same way they do about a particular issue just because you happen to be a patriot.
Of course, I use Debian, but I wish Mandrake well. Viva la Mandrake!
Now I'm going to have nightmares... get me a psychologist, a few studies, and a lawyer...
What, compile a big list of email addresses, then give it to email advertisers? I'm sure that'll help...
You of course mean "Who's Bill?", short for "Who is Bill?" "Whose Bill" indicates you're wondering which slave-owner Bill belongs to.
Hey, ya know, it's kinda cool that the name we give them, "Judge", is also a verb that describes precisely the activity we specifically employ them to engage in! What a wonderful coincidence!
(Am I the only one not bothered by the fact that we've basically said we want the judging to be done by the judges?)
The problem is not the idealized view of science here, but rather the different standards applied. If we're going to take the idealized view of science, how it ought to work (and I think more or less does over the long haul, despite the short-term problems), to be fair, take the same view of the law. If you do, you find they don't have fundamental disagreements that interact badly.
For example, you say Science cares about reality. You fail in the next point by not crediting Law with the exact same concern. You say all they're concerned with is a believable story to satisfy the audience (jury). But the exact same thing as true of Science (the audience being their peers). In both cases, you could characterize their behavior as concern with constructing a "believable story", but in both cases, they're doing this in order to try to find the truth of the matter.
Similarly, Science stubbornly rejects revision, just as Law does, and for very good reason. One does not throw out a successful theory on a whim. Again the two are quite alike.
As for the first point, I would just flat out deny the claim regarding "external consistency". Inconsistency with observation is more often that not a problem of internal consistency. The observations themselves are too theory-laden to argue otherwise in most cases. And in any case, scientists are very, very quick to look for alternate explanations when things don't come out right, and very, very slow to indict previous theory and observations. In effect, scientists are quite concerned with precedent, as are judges.
The two are not the same thing, but they are alike in most of the ways you're claiming they're different...
As for the "Greenhouse Theory", I'd ask which particular theory you're refering to and how it's been refuted, but I suspect I'd be feeding a troll, and again it would be off-topic entirely...
What's this got to do with the question? It's the whole "evil empire" attitude that emerges from the bottom when the top is now some distant entity rather than the guy in the office at the end of the hall. I don't think "capital" has anything to do with it per se, save that it's a concern to that distant imperial capital but not a concern to the subject lands...
I would disagree, simply based on the rather long development cycles at Blizzard. These games are in production for years before they get out the door. The regular Blizzard guys have been working on WC3 and WoW for some time now. Diablo II was released quite a few years ago. What have the Blizzard North guys been working on since then? [Certainly not the 1.10 patch, we know that much... :)] If there *is* going to be another Diablo sequel, very likely it's already well out of the design stage and half-coded by now. The departure of these people does not affect the likelihood of a sequel at all, since if there is going to be one, they're already got it more than half done, they're not going to abandon it now...
No, I think he's just suggesting that SC is not copy protected. Why do say it is? Are newer copies? I know the copies I have aren't...
I was thinking along those lines the other day, then I booted up the old Diablo and started playing a bit. Ugh -- it's damn near unplayable after you've gotten used to D2. Or maybe you prefer that style and it's just me. But they're definately quite different, particularly in terms of "feel", despite their commonalities...
Umm, why? I thought we were talking about MMORPGs...