The general theory is that modules on the same hardware architecture are compatible. However this doesn't totally apply to everything. The driver modules by necessity need to talk to the hardware and how you treat certain parts of the hardware are currently still OS dependant (notably GART support.)
In the future it is expected that XFree86 will abstract the necessary support and realize the goal of binary module compatibility more closely.
Xinerama is not a kernel module. Nor did it originate in what would be considered "the linux camp." It was written by DEC and contributed to the Open Group or whoever owned X at that time.
That's not proof. That's just what you've observed. You can't possibly prove that every single time someone jumps off a building they will notice soon enough. It's the philosophical argument that nothing can really be proven.
Fine go back 15. People are looking to see if there is a causation between video games and violence. What's the point of looking back and seeing a big spike in violent crime when there were no video games. Unless you want to show what seems obvious to some: video games are not a cause. At most they are a symptom, but not an indicator.
Also, I play Quake 3 with my son. We play capture the flag and are usually on the same team. I run and he blocks. We work together and feel a real sense of accomplishment when we trounce another team.
Good fucking man! Or woman. This is probably the most important comment in this whole thread so far. Wish I had moderator points for you.
Which is why the Arizone legislature passed a law several years ago requiring psychologists in court rooms to wear pointy hats and robes with stars and moons on them. Also they had to have a long beard. And whenever they had a specific point to make they had to punctuate it by gesticulating with a wand. Unfortunately the damned governer vetoed it. The bastard.
So you like, asked those beans if they wanted to die? You brush your teeth this morning? What about all those poor germs you killed? Murderer! Do you wash your dishes in hot water? Boil your food? Murderer! What's so fucking special about a nervous system that it makes something to special to kill? Come one, give one logical argument that isn't based on emotion that shows that plants are better to eat than animals.
Responsible hunting is certainly better than no hunting. Ever learn about natural processes of controlling populations? The enviroment certainly is healthier if a certain number of animals of all species are killed. It's purely natural you weenie.
You realize that the constitution doesn't say hunting rifles, handguns, or shotguns. It says arms. Which means that constitutionally I should be able to have a 1000 round/min machine gun if I wanted to. Unfortunately the supreme court is in many ways the tool of the administration and often interprets the constitution in ways that the original founders didn't intend.
It should be obvious that if the framers of the consitution expected people to need guns to defend against a corrupt government, they wouldn't say "you can have a little gun, but the big guns are the sole domain of the government." They would obviously expect that you have a weapon that would actually be of use.
And actually yes, a hunting rifle is rather practical when it comes to shooting people. Not to mention that an armed revolution these days would almost certainly involve local regiments of the national guard siding with the populace. How many husbands, sons and brothers will abandon or even arrest their families.
What about effects? Doing a proper controlled scientific study will not show you whether having a gun/knife/videogame/bouqette(sp?) is right or wrong. Right and wrong are not scientific truths. Such a study would only show that there was an effect. In this case I'm willing to say that this person's father learned to respect, control, take care of, etc. his gun. Merely having a gun or playing a video game doesn't turn you into a serial killer or mass murderer.
It doesn't matter what her last wish was. When she died Elian's father becoma the child's guardian. Custody isn't a physical item that is passed along like a family heirloom.
It has nothing to do with where Elian should grow up. It has everything to do with whether the government should be deciding on arbitrary terms whether a family should be together or not. Do you want the government to go around to each house and say, "Welp, you don't make $75,000 a year so we're taking your kids." Or "Gosh, you drive a Volkswagon, we're taking your kids." Or "Sorry you're Methodist, we're taking your kids." Or "Dang, you voted Independant, say goodbye to your kids." It's one thing to protect a child who is being abused. It's another to break up a family for political reasons.
Finally, you do realize that the major problems in Cuba right now are not the fault of the Cuban government. It's the fault of the US's policy towards Cuba. The revolution was welcomed by the populace of the country. In general people like living there.
Right on. It's important to realize that any single influence that is magnified and focused will have a detrimental effect on a person's psyche. It doesn't matter what it is you will end up with personality abberations. Watching Power Puff girls or Sailor Moon 24/7 will screw you up. Saying in a general sense that video games cause violence/aggression is complete hogwash.
No, atheists do not have blind faith. They just make the decision not to believe without some kind of evidence. It's not a matter of choosing to believe something, it's a matter of not believing something. Saying you don't know one way or another is merely philosophical pandering and basically the argument that we can't "prove" anything. What makes a supreme being so special that you are willing to believe other things without "proof" and yet the jury is still out on god? I mean, look at gravity. There is no "proof" and yet believing in gravity is not considered a matter of faith. And just like in science, being an atheist doesn't preclude the possibility of changing your mind in the face of new evidence.
Assuming by personal experience you mean from usage rather than medical research, how can you know? If you are losing mental faculty will you be able to identify that you are losing mental faculty?:):):)
Not believing the claims doesn't change whatever the facts are. It is ridiculous to use personal testimonials to try and change people's minds about drugs. Whether it's merely to get people to accept your usage or want to have people use with you or whatever.
It is an observed fact that people who are heavy users of pot lose a lot of motivation/spark. There are also links to depression. Whether is physiological or psychological I dunno, but it is observed.
(And no, I'm not going to go hunting for references online for anybody. It's out there if you are interested. If it was up to me I'd say let people do what they want as long as it has zero effect on other people. As soon as you start interfering with other people in even the minutest way... well... "bullet to the head." Guess it's a good thing I'm not in charge, eh?)
I think that you can determine if a chemical/food/protein can effect your long term memory without having to do a pure cause and effect observational study.
For instance they might be able to indentify that eating tofu leads to certain neurological changes that are known to cause memory loss. Or certain proteins are known to have certain effects.
Actually within any parameters they are allowed to send it. But the fact that no rule of law exists that prevents it doesn't mean it's right. There will come a time when it will be illegal to send spam. Look at the other intrusive marketing industries. No telemarketing to cell phones. No telemarketing to fax machines. Why do you think that is? Because it costs the receipient money. Same way that email spam will eventually be outlawed. Either that or the law makers will start getting so much spam that email will not be an available tool for them.
1 - Say it costs me.10 cents per month. Say it's only.1 cent per month. It doesn't matter. Nobody has the right to force me to defray their cost of doing business. Should I be able to break the windows in your car so I can put a flier in your drivers seat?
2 - When you look at their expenses, say $100. And then you look at home much the real cost of their spam is, say $10,000. They are getting free value. Right around $9,900 worth of free value. It is absolutely the spammers obligation to pay this, not mine.
3 - I have no idea what the hell you said there. Conventional snail mail porn advertisements cannot be sent to unverified addresses. If you subscribe to playboy, for example, this is considered verification since you can't subscribe without indicating that you are over 18. Thus they can then send you porn snail mail. It is the law in the US (or at least a large enough portion of the US to make no difference) that companies cannot send porn to random addresses. The rest of your point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Just to explain a little more though, if you were to send a flier for your nude carwash with a bevy a naked women on it to the population of my home town you will go to jail for it. Even if you lived in a different state.
4 - Actually there are plenty of commercial spammers who make it extremely difficult and expensive for an individual to track down a responsible party. Merely knowing that you got an ad for 1-413-555-5555 does you no good whatsoever. In there are certain countries around the US where it doesn't take an international prefix to call and yet they are not regulated by the US FCC. There several businesses that will be happy to charge you $10.95/min to call their non-900 number. Because of the expense of tracking these things down, it's often stupid for you to do so. You either lose a little or a lot, take your pick.
5 - So, because you can sit out there and say "look, see how unlawful and disrespectful it is in town X" you think that's how everything should be? Are you just stupid or what? Do you really see it as legitimate behavior to do something of minimal expense and offense if you can get away with it? Jesus christ you must be a real asshole.
Last week AT&T called me asking if I wanted to talk about why I switched to another long distance carrier. I didn't, and told them not to call again. The next night, again at 7pm, they called me again - same question. I told them not to call again. The third night, you guessed it... The fourth night I don't know, I was out and they didn't leave a message.
You know what? It's a Federal law that if you ask not to be called and they call back you get $500 per recurrance. You might have to sue in small claims court but you will win.
You know when I got my first email account you didn't receive spam. None. Zero. Nor did people spam newsgroups. It was an overt policy that you didn't post commercial spam to usenet because most links were paid for by your competitors. It's not overly naive to not expect spam.
Actually if a college provides the email address and necessary supporting infrastructure it seems to me that it is their right to make it clear up front that you will receive informational mailings of an official nature. I don't think that universities should support random activist groups to interfer with the legit usage of an individuals email.
Spam is not a first ammendmant issue in any country. The first ammendmant of the US constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard only to speak. I am not required to listen to what every freak on the street has to say.
1 - For each piece of spam received my ISP has to store it until I get around to reading or deleting it. My ISP knows that people get spammed and therefore have to expand their capabilities to handle the legit email. It costs them money and no struggling ISP is willing to eat it when they can pass that cost onto the customers. Spam "support" (if you want to call it that) directly translates into expenses for me.
2 - Blah. Right. You can buy software that will spam X number of people for a very small fee. Hell for $30 you can get a newgroup harvester and for another $30 you can get a spam sender. That's pretty minimal when you consider the overall expense paid by the receivers.
3 - It is absolutely illegal in the US for a company to send porn to an addressee without knowing in advance that the recepient is over 18 via snail mail.
4 - This is not whether some loser like yourself can send anonymous mail. Show me one company that sends bulk rated mail that can't be identified. Just one.
5 - Why is it a poorly configured server that allows spam? We shouldn't have to configure out systems to keep out the unwanted abuse of our systems, no more than a person should have to hire bodyguards and live in an armed citadel to protect their person. Spammers are the lowest form of life on the internet. Hell even AOLers are higher on the evolutionary scale.
Slashdot Mirror
The general theory is that modules on the same hardware architecture are compatible. However this doesn't totally apply to everything. The driver modules by necessity need to talk to the hardware and how you treat certain parts of the hardware are currently still OS dependant (notably GART support.)
In the future it is expected that XFree86 will abstract the necessary support and realize the goal of binary module compatibility more closely.
Xinerama is not a kernel module. Nor did it originate in what would be considered "the linux camp." It was written by DEC and contributed to the Open Group or whoever owned X at that time.
That's not proof. That's just what you've observed. You can't possibly prove that every single time someone jumps off a building they will notice soon enough. It's the philosophical argument that nothing can really be proven.
Or do you really think real life is like Kingpin...
You'd be surprised. People can be very depraved.
Fine go back 15. People are looking to see if there is a causation between video games and violence. What's the point of looking back and seeing a big spike in violent crime when there were no video games. Unless you want to show what seems obvious to some: video games are not a cause. At most they are a symptom, but not an indicator.
Our brains are neural networks, which learn by patterning and repetition.
Neural networks are a simulation of a theory. There's a lot more to the human mind that mere pathways, patterning and repetition.
Also, I play Quake 3 with my son. We play capture the flag and are usually on the same team. I run and he blocks. We work together and feel a real sense of accomplishment when we trounce another team.
Good fucking man! Or woman. This is probably the most important comment in this whole thread so far. Wish I had moderator points for you.
He wasn't found guilty because it turned into a circus rather than a trial.
Personally, I'm afraid of psychologists.
Which is why the Arizone legislature passed a law several years ago requiring psychologists in court rooms to wear pointy hats and robes with stars and moons on them. Also they had to have a long beard. And whenever they had a specific point to make they had to punctuate it by gesticulating with a wand. Unfortunately the damned governer vetoed it. The bastard.
Truth.
So you like, asked those beans if they wanted to die? You brush your teeth this morning? What about all those poor germs you killed? Murderer! Do you wash your dishes in hot water? Boil your food? Murderer! What's so fucking special about a nervous system that it makes something to special to kill? Come one, give one logical argument that isn't based on emotion that shows that plants are better to eat than animals.
Responsible hunting is certainly better than no hunting. Ever learn about natural processes of controlling populations? The enviroment certainly is healthier if a certain number of animals of all species are killed. It's purely natural you weenie.
You realize that the constitution doesn't say hunting rifles, handguns, or shotguns. It says arms. Which means that constitutionally I should be able to have a 1000 round/min machine gun if I wanted to. Unfortunately the supreme court is in many ways the tool of the administration and often interprets the constitution in ways that the original founders didn't intend.
It should be obvious that if the framers of the consitution expected people to need guns to defend against a corrupt government, they wouldn't say "you can have a little gun, but the big guns are the sole domain of the government." They would obviously expect that you have a weapon that would actually be of use.
And actually yes, a hunting rifle is rather practical when it comes to shooting people. Not to mention that an armed revolution these days would almost certainly involve local regiments of the national guard siding with the populace. How many husbands, sons and brothers will abandon or even arrest their families.
What about effects? Doing a proper controlled scientific study will not show you whether having a gun/knife/videogame/bouqette(sp?) is right or wrong. Right and wrong are not scientific truths. Such a study would only show that there was an effect. In this case I'm willing to say that this person's father learned to respect, control, take care of, etc. his gun. Merely having a gun or playing a video game doesn't turn you into a serial killer or mass murderer.
It doesn't matter what her last wish was. When she died Elian's father becoma the child's guardian. Custody isn't a physical item that is passed along like a family heirloom.
It has nothing to do with where Elian should grow up. It has everything to do with whether the government should be deciding on arbitrary terms whether a family should be together or not. Do you want the government to go around to each house and say, "Welp, you don't make $75,000 a year so we're taking your kids." Or "Gosh, you drive a Volkswagon, we're taking your kids." Or "Sorry you're Methodist, we're taking your kids." Or "Dang, you voted Independant, say goodbye to your kids." It's one thing to protect a child who is being abused. It's another to break up a family for political reasons.
Finally, you do realize that the major problems in Cuba right now are not the fault of the Cuban government. It's the fault of the US's policy towards Cuba. The revolution was welcomed by the populace of the country. In general people like living there.
Right on. It's important to realize that any single influence that is magnified and focused will have a detrimental effect on a person's psyche. It doesn't matter what it is you will end up with personality abberations. Watching Power Puff girls or Sailor Moon 24/7 will screw you up. Saying in a general sense that video games cause violence/aggression is complete hogwash.
Not to mention that in the last 10 years, during the recent resurgence of video games, violent crimes and such have gone down.
Offtopic alert.
:)
No, atheists do not have blind faith. They just make the decision not to believe without some kind of evidence. It's not a matter of choosing to believe something, it's a matter of not believing something. Saying you don't know one way or another is merely philosophical pandering and basically the argument that we can't "prove" anything. What makes a supreme being so special that you are willing to believe other things without "proof" and yet the jury is still out on god? I mean, look at gravity. There is no "proof" and yet believing in gravity is not considered a matter of faith. And just like in science, being an atheist doesn't preclude the possibility of changing your mind in the face of new evidence.
Have a good day.
Assuming by personal experience you mean from usage rather than medical research, how can you know? If you are losing mental faculty will you be able to identify that you are losing mental faculty? :) :) :)
Not believing the claims doesn't change whatever the facts are. It is ridiculous to use personal testimonials to try and change people's minds about drugs. Whether it's merely to get people to accept your usage or want to have people use with you or whatever.
It is an observed fact that people who are heavy users of pot lose a lot of motivation/spark. There are also links to depression. Whether is physiological or psychological I dunno, but it is observed.
(And no, I'm not going to go hunting for references online for anybody. It's out there if you are interested. If it was up to me I'd say let people do what they want as long as it has zero effect on other people. As soon as you start interfering with other people in even the minutest way... well... "bullet to the head." Guess it's a good thing I'm not in charge, eh?)
I think that you can determine if a chemical/food/protein can effect your long term memory without having to do a pure cause and effect observational study.
For instance they might be able to indentify that eating tofu leads to certain neurological changes that are known to cause memory loss. Or certain proteins are known to have certain effects.
Actually within any parameters they are allowed to send it. But the fact that no rule of law exists that prevents it doesn't mean it's right. There will come a time when it will be illegal to send spam. Look at the other intrusive marketing industries. No telemarketing to cell phones. No telemarketing to fax machines. Why do you think that is? Because it costs the receipient money. Same way that email spam will eventually be outlawed. Either that or the law makers will start getting so much spam that email will not be an available tool for them.
1 - Say it costs me .10 cents per month. Say it's only .1 cent per month. It doesn't matter. Nobody has the right to force me to defray their cost of doing business. Should I be able to break the windows in your car so I can put a flier in your drivers seat?
2 - When you look at their expenses, say $100. And then you look at home much the real cost of their spam is, say $10,000. They are getting free value. Right around $9,900 worth of free value. It is absolutely the spammers obligation to pay this, not mine.
3 - I have no idea what the hell you said there. Conventional snail mail porn advertisements cannot be sent to unverified addresses. If you subscribe to playboy, for example, this is considered verification since you can't subscribe without indicating that you are over 18. Thus they can then send you porn snail mail. It is the law in the US (or at least a large enough portion of the US to make no difference) that companies cannot send porn to random addresses. The rest of your point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Just to explain a little more though, if you were to send a flier for your nude carwash with a bevy a naked women on it to the population of my home town you will go to jail for it. Even if you lived in a different state.
4 - Actually there are plenty of commercial spammers who make it extremely difficult and expensive for an individual to track down a responsible party. Merely knowing that you got an ad for 1-413-555-5555 does you no good whatsoever. In there are certain countries around the US where it doesn't take an international prefix to call and yet they are not regulated by the US FCC. There several businesses that will be happy to charge you $10.95/min to call their non-900 number. Because of the expense of tracking these things down, it's often stupid for you to do so. You either lose a little or a lot, take your pick.
5 - So, because you can sit out there and say "look, see how unlawful and disrespectful it is in town X" you think that's how everything should be? Are you just stupid or what? Do you really see it as legitimate behavior to do something of minimal expense and offense if you can get away with it? Jesus christ you must be a real asshole.
Last week AT&T called me asking if I wanted to talk about why I switched to another long distance carrier. I didn't, and told them not to call again. The next night, again at 7pm, they called me again - same question. I told them not to call again. The third night, you guessed it... The fourth night I don't know, I was out and they didn't leave a message.
You know what? It's a Federal law that if you ask not to be called and they call back you get $500 per recurrance. You might have to sue in small claims court but you will win.
You know when I got my first email account you didn't receive spam. None. Zero. Nor did people spam newsgroups. It was an overt policy that you didn't post commercial spam to usenet because most links were paid for by your competitors. It's not overly naive to not expect spam.
Actually if a college provides the email address and necessary supporting infrastructure it seems to me that it is their right to make it clear up front that you will receive informational mailings of an official nature. I don't think that universities should support random activist groups to interfer with the legit usage of an individuals email.
Spam is not a first ammendmant issue in any country. The first ammendmant of the US constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard only to speak. I am not required to listen to what every freak on the street has to say.
1 - For each piece of spam received my ISP has to store it until I get around to reading or deleting it. My ISP knows that people get spammed and therefore have to expand their capabilities to handle the legit email. It costs them money and no struggling ISP is willing to eat it when they can pass that cost onto the customers. Spam "support" (if you want to call it that) directly translates into expenses for me.
2 - Blah. Right. You can buy software that will spam X number of people for a very small fee. Hell for $30 you can get a newgroup harvester and for another $30 you can get a spam sender. That's pretty minimal when you consider the overall expense paid by the receivers.
3 - It is absolutely illegal in the US for a company to send porn to an addressee without knowing in advance that the recepient is over 18 via snail mail.
4 - This is not whether some loser like yourself can send anonymous mail. Show me one company that sends bulk rated mail that can't be identified. Just one.
5 - Why is it a poorly configured server that allows spam? We shouldn't have to configure out systems to keep out the unwanted abuse of our systems, no more than a person should have to hire bodyguards and live in an armed citadel to protect their person. Spammers are the lowest form of life on the internet. Hell even AOLers are higher on the evolutionary scale.