Dosemu under Linux has better slowdown capability than Moslo.exe. I have successfully played 4 or 5 of the elder Ultimas and they seemed to run decently with the artificial slowdown.
One project I worship is http://exult.sourceforge.net which has rewritten the Ultima 7 engine with timer-based animation, etc. It is *so* cool. Even if you're not into Ultima games, you should check out the project.
The whole thing is sampled by Cold Cut on their Let's Play album. Very amusing, though obviously Biafra is on a big ass rant... too easily slipping into the inductive fallacy of the Slippery Slope.
Heh, that's funny since I just heard for the first time last night the version of Madonna's "Justify My Love" where she is reading from Revelations throughout the song.
Yeah, pretty much. I'd like to see Texas (where I live) switch over to proportional congresscritters. I need to read more on the subject, but last I read, the Founders were against a two-party system, but the States ended up encouraging it (intentionally or not) through the winner-take-all stakes that you mentioned.
Furthermore, why is the only solution to party difficulties "bipartisanship"? As if they're the only two games in town.
Annoys the hell out of me.:-)
-l
Re:Scientific faith is different than religious fa
on
Heredity and Humanity
·
· Score: 2
Solipsism there is only if you accept Nietsche's critique as final. Personally, I don't; I think science is great. I tend to consider myself more of a Thomist, along Alisdair MacIntyre lines. My beef is with people who assert that a belief is irrational when what they should have said was that the belief was unscientific.
It may, and probably always will, be unscientific to believe in a god, or magic, or somesuch. But such beliefs cannot be called irrational solely because they lie outside of the domain of scientific inquiry.
My favorite quote from MST3K's Cave Dwellers:
Really Dull Old Guy in movie: "Science is only one path, one of many."
Crow: "There's also fan dancing! Woo!"
-l
Re:Scientific faith is different than religious fa
on
Heredity and Humanity
·
· Score: 2
But see that's the deal. You are engaging in induction when you say the circumstantial evidence is enough justification for the truth of the scientific method. You are engaging in faith, which was my whole point. Thank you for proving it.
You will find more about results-based faith in the writings of William James. He dubs it "Pragmatism." James is a wacko and you will learn the logical consequences of subordinating truth to usefulness.
If the scientific method cannot produce truth, why use it? Can you even call it "scientific" (considering the Latin "scio" for "I know")? I'm interested in the truth, not whiz-bang technology under which you seem too willing to submit science.
Furthermore, and to the point, as you are engaged in an inductive philosophical project about the scientific method, you are engaged in just as irrational a process as any other being attempting to make heads or tails of phenomena. Your process is no more rational, no more deductive, and no more objective than theirs. Concluding that these folks' beliefs are less rational than yours is not only false, but worse it is vitriolic ad hominem.
I suggest that you stop and accept that your preferences are a matter of aesthetics.
-l
Re:Scientific faith is different than religious fa
on
Heredity and Humanity
·
· Score: 2
Ok, so your point is that we disagree on what "faith" means then. Again, "evidence that it works" by what definition? Progress... such a flimsy term. What you're argument is saying is that the scientific method is useful. You provide no evidence that it is true.
-l
Re:Scientific faith is different than religious fa
on
Heredity and Humanity
·
· Score: 2
Read my other comment along these lines in this thread. Basically, you're ignoring your faith in the scientific method, your faith in logic, and your faith in the actual predictability of the cosmos.
Few people think faith has no experiential basis. These faiths of science are gounded in experience and seem pretty acceptable to most people. Why can't you accept them as they are?
NO NO NO. Science incurs prediction, and if the model fails the prediction that model is invalidated and we try again.
Of course, but you're ignoring the questions of 1) the validity of the prediction-making process (i.e., whether the scientific method is a truth-bearing methodology) and 2) the validity of the model.
[1] makes the obvious assumption that the universe is predictable. The problem here is that predictability is a subjective claim. It's a faith claim based on experience. What you don't get is that that's just fine.
[2] Assume you have a model that accurately predicts all phenomena. What methodology do you use to prove that this is how the universe works? Simple. You believe that the model is accurate, even though there is no way to check it.
The postmoderns (and the moderns for that matter) have always been lacking in their history of philosophy. As in most universities today, they sort of skip from the Greeks to Descartes. HELLLLLLLO! The medievals (you know, the guys from the so-called Dark Ages... the non-Enlightened ones...) were discussing this stuff and, logically speaking, it boils down to a philosophical disagreement as to whether universals exist, and if they do, what are they. The terms aren't precisely interchangeable with subjective/objective, but close enough.
The modern project assumes there are only particulars, even when they're using freaking universals in their arguments. The postmoderns have just pointed this out and believe that this justifies whatever wacky political position they happen to have at the time. The postmoderns, just like the moderns, operate on the assumption that there are only particulars, they're just more consistent about it.
What the Hell is my point? I suggest reading a book by Alisdair MacIntyre called After Virtue. It's not the best written book ever, but he gives a decent enough argument why we should give Thomas of Aquinas' Aristotlean philosophy a second look after all these centuries. Thomas takes the middle ground on the universal/particular distinction.
Here in the South (Austin, TX, anyway), it seems pretty common to use the word "jive" in place of "jibe." This is for two reasons, 1) standard linguistics... 'b' corrupts to 'v' and 2) the meaning of "jive" which is "to swing" (think Swing dancing) bears a connotation of mutual agreement. Thus, the two things in question dance together, they swing, they jive.
This defense brought to by the guy who is trying to explain to his 5 year old that "ain't", as used by his redneck mother, is less acceptable than "isn't" or "aren't".
this is where the gconf vs bonobo-config thread starts. Some Gnome hackers, notably Havoc, definitely do not want bonobo to be a requirement for gconf. Some Gnome hackers, notably Martin, think a bonobo-ized config system would be much better.
Both parties are attempting to predict future usage of gconf/bonobo-conf, as not a lot is dependent on gconf right now. AFAICT, all parties expect more of the core stuff to use the configuration database.
I'd kinda like to see the bonobo-conf for 2.0. According to a few posts in the thread, the gconf API has problems already and that a bonobo reimplementation would fix those problems as well as add the benefits of componentization. Since this is a new major release, I don't see why Havoc is so concerned with backwards compatibility for the gconf API since they already planned to wrap it.
but then, I've always been partial to the Linus Torvalds development kernel approach: ok you convinced me it's a good idea. Let's see what broke!
:-),
-l
References:
gconf info in.deb package, "GConf is a configuration database system, functionally similar to the Windows registry but lots better.:-) It's being written for the GNOME desktop but does not require GNOME."
bonobo gnumeric: http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnumeric/gnumeric-0. 65
"Please do not package gnumeric-bonobo yet. However, NEW for this release Bug reports are now welcome for the Bonobo build. It will become the default shortly."
The main issue is whether or not Gnome 2.0 will be bonobo-ized. Martin resigned because he fervently wanted 2.0 to be bonobized. Instead, the goals for 2.0 have been lessened to porting to gtk 2.0 and some other odds and ends.
Bonobo is a cool component architecture. It's more complicated, but supposed to be much more flexible than KParts. Do some google research or dig around on gnome.org to find out more about it. I'm kind of sad that the core components won't be bonobo-ized for 2.0, there's lots of neat stuff a Gnome programmer could do. However, most of the other folks appear to feel that bonobo-ization would be biting more off than they could chew for the projected 2.0 release.
Seeing as how Microsoft has purchased Great Plains and how Peachtree is an awful hack, our small business has a great interest in finding an affordable suite under a libre OS. We have looked into a few options, but honestly, I think GnuCash for small businesses is worth waiting for.
So, here are my questions:
. Do you guys have any timeframe on the small business release?
. Have you considered creating a startup to fund development of the small business suite? There is a *lot* of potential here for selling services unlike Nautilus... tax updates, training, dead-tree manuals, etc.
Indeed, I wonder if GNU/Linux distributions were to adopt MAC and CAPS more fully whether or not sysadmins would be up to the task... especially at smaller companies (like mine) where they can't afford the higher end guys to do simple internal MIS stuff. I've actually been kind of glad that Linux has not gone all ACLs yet due to the sheer complexity that that involves. But, when Linus does finally accept a patch for it, I'll thank my stars again that I transferred to the programming department!
Oh you're right about that. Sorry... I just skimmed it since I saw it on the ml and didn't reread it properly. I am curious if Office2k is affected now!
There's an interesting post on BugTraq that can be boiled down to "Win2k has some great granularity features... unfortunately the apps you are pretty much forced to use with it (Office2k, etc.) stink up that granularity."
Re:If democratic and elected, not so sad after all
on
Harm From The Hague
·
· Score: 2
Indeed. This is the fucking age of the Internet... why not have a bunch of virtual nation-states with whatever laws we want? I mean, ya know?
Of course, there is all that enforcement crap and security that only makes sense in a geographical framework, but why not have several virtual nation-states in a particular geographical area? Not to mention that the legacy countries may bitch about losing land, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
that was NASDAQ:
Remove spaces from pasted URLs.
-l
http://www.nvidia.com works here. I have Flash 5 and Java installed as well. Javascript for browser is turned on.
Debian sid build.
---
~$ dpkg -s mozilla-browser
Package: mozilla-browser
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: non-US
Installed-Size: 23072
Maintainer: Takuo KITAME
Source: mozilla
Version: 2:0.9.3+0-1
---
Dosemu under Linux has better slowdown capability than Moslo.exe. I have successfully played 4 or 5 of the elder Ultimas and they seemed to run decently with the artificial slowdown.
One project I worship is http://exult.sourceforge.net which has rewritten the Ultima 7 engine with timer-based animation, etc. It is *so* cool. Even if you're not into Ultima games, you should check out the project.
-l
The whole thing is sampled by Cold Cut on their Let's Play album. Very amusing, though obviously Biafra is on a big ass rant... too easily slipping into the inductive fallacy of the Slippery Slope.
-l
Heh, that's funny since I just heard for the first time last night the version of Madonna's "Justify My Love" where she is reading from Revelations throughout the song.
What're you gonna do?
-l
Hehe, farmers would be in a better position if there were 200M more mouths to feed.
$0.02
-l
Yeah, pretty much. I'd like to see Texas (where I live) switch over to proportional congresscritters. I need to read more on the subject, but last I read, the Founders were against a two-party system, but the States ended up encouraging it (intentionally or not) through the winner-take-all stakes that you mentioned.
Now if we just had referendum rights here, too...
-l
Furthermore, why is the only solution to party difficulties "bipartisanship"? As if they're the only two games in town.
:-)
Annoys the hell out of me.
-l
Solipsism there is only if you accept Nietsche's critique as final. Personally, I don't; I think science is great. I tend to consider myself more of a Thomist, along Alisdair MacIntyre lines. My beef is with people who assert that a belief is irrational when what they should have said was that the belief was unscientific.
It may, and probably always will, be unscientific to believe in a god, or magic, or somesuch. But such beliefs cannot be called irrational solely because they lie outside of the domain of scientific inquiry.
My favorite quote from MST3K's Cave Dwellers:
Really Dull Old Guy in movie: "Science is only one path, one of many."
Crow: "There's also fan dancing! Woo!"
-l
But see that's the deal. You are engaging in induction when you say the circumstantial evidence is enough justification for the truth of the scientific method. You are engaging in faith, which was my whole point. Thank you for proving it.
You will find more about results-based faith in the writings of William James. He dubs it "Pragmatism." James is a wacko and you will learn the logical consequences of subordinating truth to usefulness.
If the scientific method cannot produce truth, why use it? Can you even call it "scientific" (considering the Latin "scio" for "I know")? I'm interested in the truth, not whiz-bang technology under which you seem too willing to submit science.
Furthermore, and to the point, as you are engaged in an inductive philosophical project about the scientific method, you are engaged in just as irrational a process as any other being attempting to make heads or tails of phenomena. Your process is no more rational, no more deductive, and no more objective than theirs. Concluding that these folks' beliefs are less rational than yours is not only false, but worse it is vitriolic ad hominem.
I suggest that you stop and accept that your preferences are a matter of aesthetics.
-l
-l
Read my other comment along these lines in this thread. Basically, you're ignoring your faith in the scientific method, your faith in logic, and your faith in the actual predictability of the cosmos.
Few people think faith has no experiential basis. These faiths of science are gounded in experience and seem pretty acceptable to most people. Why can't you accept them as they are?
-l
NO NO NO. Science incurs prediction, and if the model fails the prediction that model is invalidated and we try again.
Of course, but you're ignoring the questions of 1) the validity of the prediction-making process (i.e., whether the scientific method is a truth-bearing methodology) and 2) the validity of the model.
[1] makes the obvious assumption that the universe is predictable. The problem here is that predictability is a subjective claim. It's a faith claim based on experience. What you don't get is that that's just fine.
[2] Assume you have a model that accurately predicts all phenomena. What methodology do you use to prove that this is how the universe works? Simple. You believe that the model is accurate, even though there is no way to check it.
-l
The postmoderns (and the moderns for that matter) have always been lacking in their history of philosophy. As in most universities today, they sort of skip from the Greeks to Descartes. HELLLLLLLO! The medievals (you know, the guys from the so-called Dark Ages... the non-Enlightened ones...) were discussing this stuff and, logically speaking, it boils down to a philosophical disagreement as to whether universals exist, and if they do, what are they. The terms aren't precisely interchangeable with subjective/objective, but close enough.
The modern project assumes there are only particulars, even when they're using freaking universals in their arguments. The postmoderns have just pointed this out and believe that this justifies whatever wacky political position they happen to have at the time. The postmoderns, just like the moderns, operate on the assumption that there are only particulars, they're just more consistent about it.
What the Hell is my point? I suggest reading a book by Alisdair MacIntyre called After Virtue. It's not the best written book ever, but he gives a decent enough argument why we should give Thomas of Aquinas' Aristotlean philosophy a second look after all these centuries. Thomas takes the middle ground on the universal/particular distinction.
-l
Yeah, I really dug that thread. As Ingo points out, X15 really shows how fast the 2.4 kernel can be in user or kernel space.
:-)
Now if they can just fix the freakin' VM...
-l
Here in the South (Austin, TX, anyway), it seems pretty common to use the word "jive" in place of "jibe." This is for two reasons, 1) standard linguistics... 'b' corrupts to 'v' and 2) the meaning of "jive" which is "to swing" (think Swing dancing) bears a connotation of mutual agreement. Thus, the two things in question dance together, they swing, they jive.
This defense brought to by the guy who is trying to explain to his 5 year old that "ain't", as used by his redneck mother, is less acceptable than "isn't" or "aren't".
cheers,
-l
this is where the gconf vs bonobo-config thread starts. Some Gnome hackers, notably Havoc, definitely do not want bonobo to be a requirement for gconf. Some Gnome hackers, notably Martin, think a bonobo-ized config system would be much better.
Both parties are attempting to predict future usage of gconf/bonobo-conf, as not a lot is dependent on gconf right now. AFAICT, all parties expect more of the core stuff to use the configuration database.
I'd kinda like to see the bonobo-conf for 2.0. According to a few posts in the thread, the gconf API has problems already and that a bonobo reimplementation would fix those problems as well as add the benefits of componentization. Since this is a new major release, I don't see why Havoc is so concerned with backwards compatibility for the gconf API since they already planned to wrap it.
but then, I've always been partial to the Linus Torvalds development kernel approach: ok you convinced me it's a good idea. Let's see what broke!
:-),
-l
References:
The main issue is whether or not Gnome 2.0 will be bonobo-ized. Martin resigned because he fervently wanted 2.0 to be bonobized. Instead, the goals for 2.0 have been lessened to porting to gtk 2.0 and some other odds and ends.
Bonobo is a cool component architecture. It's more complicated, but supposed to be much more flexible than KParts. Do some google research or dig around on gnome.org to find out more about it. I'm kind of sad that the core components won't be bonobo-ized for 2.0, there's lots of neat stuff a Gnome programmer could do. However, most of the other folks appear to feel that bonobo-ization would be biting more off than they could chew for the projected 2.0 release.
STill, I wish them luck.
-l
UGH! I withdraw my question. That's what I get for just skimming the damn headlines.
-l
Seeing as how Microsoft has purchased Great Plains and how Peachtree is an awful hack, our small business has a great interest in finding an affordable suite under a libre OS. We have looked into a few options, but honestly, I think GnuCash for small businesses is worth waiting for.
So, here are my questions:
. Do you guys have any timeframe on the small business release?
. Have you considered creating a startup to fund development of the small business suite? There is a *lot* of potential here for selling services unlike Nautilus... tax updates, training, dead-tree manuals, etc.
Thanks for all the good code!
-l
Indeed, I wonder if GNU/Linux distributions were to adopt MAC and CAPS more fully whether or not sysadmins would be up to the task... especially at smaller companies (like mine) where they can't afford the higher end guys to do simple internal MIS stuff. I've actually been kind of glad that Linux has not gone all ACLs yet due to the sheer complexity that that involves. But, when Linus does finally accept a patch for it, I'll thank my stars again that I transferred to the programming department!
-l
Oh you're right about that. Sorry... I just skimmed it since I saw it on the ml and didn't reread it properly. I am curious if Office2k is affected now!
-l
-l
and don't forget the corporate death penalty. :-)
-l
Indeed. This is the fucking age of the Internet... why not have a bunch of virtual nation-states with whatever laws we want? I mean, ya know?
Of course, there is all that enforcement crap and security that only makes sense in a geographical framework, but why not have several virtual nation-states in a particular geographical area? Not to mention that the legacy countries may bitch about losing land, etc...
crazy idea,
-l