Still, I don't see why not clean it up even faster. Not like the oil is doing any good floating there. And some googling suggests that the bacteria only eat hydrocarbons, so whatever remains after that still would need to be dealt with.
This conversation is over due to this statement by you. By your comparison of a hard working waiter/waitress getting higher tips to a corrupt political politician shows how fucked up you really are. Id spit in your face if you was close enough right now. And hope you had the guts to do something about it.
How dramatic. If you decide to take that as a mortal insult, so be it. But I'm firm in my belief that nobody deserves extra payment for properly performing the job they're already being paid for doing.
Could you explain why it's needed in your profession, but not in others? For instance, why doesn't a butcher require a tip as well, why does one tip a taxi but not a bus driver, and why can't I demand a 20% extra to write the code I'm paid to write properly and on time?
I do make an exception for actual exceptional service. One example I remember is a taxi driver. Once one spent several minutes figuring out how to fit a huge monitor in the car. That certainly was exceptional service, as he didn't need to bother with something that was on the edge of making the car unsafe to drive (it got very close to blocking the shift lever), and it took a good deal of effort to get there. So of course he got a big tip for his trouble.
You can't even keep track of your own web site, no wonder you can't handle pay based on individual productivity. This conversation is over, what a loser.
I'm perfectly aware the host stopped existing in 2003. I keep that around mostly as a reminder of the times when a community I belonged to was large and vibrant. Those who were in it as well should get the reference. Also it throws off nosey people;-)
Seriously, I wonder what were you looking for there. If it was still around all you'd find is a few game mods, which seems hardly relevant to the conversation.
IMO, whether I'm right in this or not is completely independent of my current situation, qualifications and such. If you're fishing for something to use for an "ad hominem" argument (your reply suggests so), don't bother. It's bad form for arguments anyway, and I'm not going to fall for that one.
None. As a person that has worked in these type of jobs. I wouldn't want to wait on you anyway. Take your money and shove it. I can do much better off others. And even better yet, when I walk out the door with the higher pay check in tips. I will know my customers did it because they enjoyed and appreciated the service I provided. Satisfaction in a job well done. Based on amount of money I made that day.
Bet your boss would really love that attitude. I'm sure he doesn't mind losing customers to keep you happy.
If it wasn't for the waiter/waitress letting the cook know what you wanted, wouldn't get jack shit.
But it turns out it's actually your job to serve customers. If you don't do it, you get fired. So this part doesn't concern me a whole lot. If you take too long I'll just pull out my cell phone and find some way of entretaining myself, even for an hour.
If it wasn't for the waiter/waitress letting you know the customer favorites, you would miss out. There is alot to be said about finding out what the waiter/waitress thinks about various items on the menu. But, knowing your a cheap cock sucker. I would not offer that knowledge to you.
Couldn't care less. My way of eating at restaurants is the following: over the weeks, systematically go from the top of the menu the bottom, skipping those things I obviously won't like. After I'm done with that I'll alternate between those I like best. I don't really want your opinion, I'll form my own.
Sorry to be blunt, but the cook interests me a whole lot more than you do. The cook is why I'm there in the first place, and you're just a replaceable cog in the mechanism.
What a bull shit argument. How the fuck can you compare a corrupt cop/corrupt politician with a waiter/waitress. Next.
The person who benefits from a screwed up situation is the entirely wrong person to ask whether they'd like it to stop existing. If it benefits you, of course you'll say it's a wonderful thing.
I take that statement as someone that can't survive on your own skill set which is why you don't believe in pay based on quality and attitude of work.
Nope, surviving just fine, thanks. Not an union member either. Unions are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. If everything is fine without one, then one isn't needed.
You quite obviously live in the socialist world where you don't believe people should get ahead by their own merits.
By that I guess you imply you live in the Land of Capitalism, where last time I checked there was a free market (in theory, at least).
And in a free market, I'm perfectly free to vote with my dollars, pay only what's required, and avoid establishments that make a big deal about tipping. Where's the problem?
The better worker gets the increased pay check
Correct. You work well, you get a raise. If the boss is a jerk and you don't, you go work for somebody who pays better. You can demand a higher wage by the virtue of being a better worker. Just like any other job.
And, why would I want to tip the waitress anyway? If I was going to tip somebody it'd be the cook, but that seems to be difficult to do.
Why don't you talk to someone that brings home several hundred dollars a night in tips what they think of your opinion.
That's like asking a corrupt policeman the same sort of thing. Of course they like having extra money, duh. That doesn't mean it's a good thing to have.
What I do think is that they should earn the same amount of money, except as part of their real wage.
Since we're dealing with pathological cases, I assume that the case where there's no space between MBR and first partition is also automatically handled by this Ubuntu-over-NTFS thing?
I'm not sure how the ubuntu installer would handle it, but grub would complain, refuse to install, and ask to manually confirm usage of a block list, which as you said is a kind of horrible solution.
A bootloader update is predictable and can be checked for on each Windows startup. Indeed, Windows (as other OS) upgrades may replace the MBR without asking, so I assume this is happening already.
And predictably happens on every single computer that gets updated, instead on just one of the few using some program with a stupid form of DRM. I think probably the first case happens quite a bit more often than the second.
A random program writing to unpartitioned space or a restore utility assuming that unpartitioned space can zeroed on restore is much harder to mitigate against.
It's easier to mitigate actually. Normal programs have no business at all writing there, hence you can complain to the program's maker. If enough people complain they'll get the hit.
On the other hand, MS has perfectly legitimate reasons for writing into the MBR, at least when something boot related is updated.
Oh, transparently = quickly.
By "transparently" I mean quickly, 100% exactly and with no chance of something going horribly wrong, yes.
Well, if you're not explicitly modifying the size of any earlier partitions
That would take a few hours, since you're not just shrinking or expanding a partition, you're moving all the 500GB or whatever of it. As such it's not a very attractive option.
and you have no interpartition gaps to use up
Well, guess what the "embedding area" is? If it's okay to use it for something like this then what grub is doing is perfectly legitimate. If it isn't, then it's not a legitimate option for this either.
and your partitioning tool can't gracefully reduce the size of any earlier filesystem by one sector, yes.
Again, the problem isn't so much shrinking it, as having to move the whole thing, which would easily take a few hours, during which anything that goes wrong risks horrible corruption.
We're already considering a completely idiotic setup, even though I'm sure at least one vendor has sold machines configured like that. Of course, we have to go to challenging cases for this horrible hack to even be considered appropriate;-)
Horrible or not, you have to deal with it. Things in the real world are rarely ideal, and if it fails to work it'll be considered to be your fault even if it isn't.
Either replace the boot code in the NTFS boot sector to load a Grub n'th stage or replace NTLDR (or Vista/7 equivalent) with a Grub n'th stage.
That will be even worse. Instead of 4 programs that break it, it'll break on every windows update that updates the bootloader.
I simply meant that the EBR should be considered metadata, not in any sense part of the logical partition.
Still don't get what you mean. I mean that (example numbers):
Option A: MBR is on sector 0. First primary partition starts on sector 64, where its boot sector is.
Option B: MBR is on sector 0. There's an extended partition record, pointing to sector 64. The extended partition record points to the start of the partition, which must be on sector 65 or higher.
Thus, you can't convert transparently from primary to logical. To convert you'd have to push all the partition's data down by one sector, if it's even possible.
There's no obligation to not re-align on the faked cylinder boundary during any repartition. The space you waste simply ends up not being available for allocation to your new operating system's partition.
There's no obligation for modern systems. Old OSes require partitions to be aligned on a cylinder boundary, and don't know there's such a thing as LBA.
And if GRUB is using unpartitioned space to keep me from having to do that, then why the hell am I advised to stick/boot on its own ext2 partition
The 1024 cylinders limit. You don't have to do it if you have a modern BIOS.
Another reason to do it is because you boot from a filesystem that grub doesn't support yet. The ext* and reiserfs filesystems are supported fine though.
and more importantly, why do I have to run the grub utility every time I edit the config file? If I have to run the utility after every change, it can sure as damn recalculate the blocks the relevant files happen to be on.
Grub doesn't require this. What you probably have is a distribution script, that takes your config file, sticks something on top and on the bottom, and writes that to the real grub config.
Also, with the blocks thing, the problem is: what if your filesystem has defragmentation, or you install a new kernel and it gets written over where the old one was? Oops, now the system doesn't boot. Block lists have to be updated every time the location on the disk changes, not just when the config does.
What issues? If you mean "the presence of a recovery partition means fewer unused partitions" then, yes, of course it may. Just as the presence of multiple operating systems may. But you're foolish if you start custom installing operating systems on your machine then try to use an OEM recovery partition. Either use a regular OS install ISO or something like Reflect / TrueImage / Ghost which is designed with multiple partitions in mind.
You can actually install Linux into a large file hosted on a NTFS partition.
So here's a challenging case:
First partition is NTFS, 500GB free. Next 3 partitions are primary, recovery data.
Get Linux to install and run from the NTFS partition (in an.img file), while not adding any partitions (you can't), not passing control to the NTFS boot sector (will boot windows, so won't do).
You can actually install Ubuntu in such a way, btw.
No, the same code used to search for a particular partition (primary/logical) would first be instructed to list each partition number and type. Not a sufficiently informative UI for production, but there's an awful lot you can do in ~400 bytes if you make the effort. But a production boot manager would load more substantial code from a particular partition so it could create an elegant, descriptive menu.
Okay, explain how that will work in the case above, something that's currently in use and supported. Remember the partition table is all full, and in the interest of user friendliness the installer can't make you delete partitions, because that's the entire point of sharing the NTFS one in the first place.
Well, the logical partition is only considered to start where indicated by the extended boot record.
Not sure what you mean there.
Not unless your drive was completely full, in which case you wouldn't have space to repartition for your new OS in the first place.
No, we're on the NTFS partition here. No repartitioning needed.
On a cylinder boundary? How is this relevant with LBA? What are you actually achieving with a modern drive?
You'd be surprised, but people still run DOS and Win95. Legacy stuff. Can't break it arbitrarily.
The MBR doesn't need to read a filesystem. It's good enough that a partition boot sector does it. And if your filesystem is so complex that it needs more than 510 bytes of code to read a small file, you're using the wrong filesystem for a bootloader (or entirely).
Like other people mentioned, dedicating a partition to the bootloader is undesirable, as it runs into issues with recovery partitions.
Maybe Grub doesn't. I was pointing out that my experimental MBR bootloader did the same but first presented a menu.
Your menu probably was hardcoded. Grub reads the menu from disk. I mean that if you have installed Linux on ext4, grub will actually read/etc/grub/menu.lst from ext4, and load the config file from it. If you think of storing it inside the MBR, then it's awfully small for things like listing multiple kernel versions with descriptive labels. That won't fit in the boot sector either, so you still must read ext4 or whatever.
The other way to do it is giving it a pointer to a list of blocks, which as you said sucks, and will break if anything on the disk moves in a way that doesn't correspond with the mapping.
For the n'th time, there is no reason you can't boot from a logical partition. If you already have 4 primary partitions, convert one to a logical partition.
I don't think you can convert transparently. In my understanding, an extended partition has an extended partition record right where the boot sector on a primary would be. To covert a primary to an extended you'd have to shrink the filesystem and push it down by several blocks so that it starts on cylinder 0 too.
I wasn't imagining that I was forced to manually type out a list of blocks occupied by the file. But I was concerned by exactly what you say. Dear God, why do it like that?
It's the same thing LILO did, which is why most people use Grub now.
And the reason why is because the MBR is tiny, and has no room for code that reads say, ext4.
The MBR did the boot menu and loaded the boot sector from any given partition. That boot sector would do as you say. You don't need to "bet" - it's pretty much what I said:-).
The MBR has no menu. The basic stuff is "find active partition, load first sector, jump to it". With Grub it's more like "load code from embedding area, run it". Which contains enough to read things like ext4 to load the rest.
Really? So why does GRUB need any extra-partition space?
Because there's no room for filesystem reading code in the MBR. Especially not for reading all the formats Linux supports at once (what if you want to boot from FAT, ext3 and zfs?)
If you're thinking grub should load the code from some fixed space in the Linux partition, then every single FS would have to agree to reserve that space. Including the ones like JFS that come from elsewhere.
Why wouldn't you be able to retrieve the boot sector of an extended partition? Obviously some operating systems (Windows) will assume they're booting off a primary partition and break unless their boot sector is tweaked, but this isn't inevitable.
In my understanding, a partition having a boot sector is a DOS convention, that other filesystems don't necessarily follow. I think 512 bytes at the start may be mostly guaranteed, but again, you're not going to read things like reiserfs in that little space, so you're back to having the same problem.
Which is why it should load a second stage from a system or other partition.
It can't read it from "other partition" because if there is a filesystem there, it has to understand it, and 446 bytes is not enough.
If you mean a special, reserved partition, then that reduces the number of primary partitions for other purposes to 3, which creates compatibility issues. And if there are 4 primary ones already, you're screwed.
Resuming: the way x86 computers boot sucks, and boot loaders have to be written with those constraints in mind. The whole "embedding area" is a horrible hack, but the alternatives have significant issues as well.
Well, some googling suggests that it's aerobic, and needs extra nitrogen and phosphorus.
So, yeah, it'll happily munch on the oil, but it consumes oxygen, and it requires nitrogen, which is a recipe for an algal bloom for yet more deoxygenation. So not only everything gets to get poisoned by the oil while it's there, they'll also suffocate when the bacteria get to it. That sounds like an awesome plan.
Free software advocates really need to understand that if you want to have true freedom, you have to let people use the project the way the want to and stop tossing a fit when someone doesn't contribute back to it. If you expect or want to get contributions back, you should choose a license that requires it. Otherwise you're being quite a hypocrite about free software.
Exactly. If you want something in return, ask for it.
Purpose of the BSD license also is to let everyone use code freely the way they want, the only true form of freedom. Once you start demanding something more than attribution you're removing freedom and limiting what people can do, making it no better than just having a commercial license. This is also why I view BSD license as way more free than GPL, which has many, many limitations forced upon you. Not really the definition of freedom, is it?
I don't give a damn if you or anybody else thinks which license is "more free", "less free", or "communist" or whatever other label you want to use for it. I use the GPL because it does what I want to. If you want to convince me that I should license my software under the BSD, then try explaining why would that be in my interest. Arguments about semantics aren't going to do it.
I've got this personal philosophy: don't offer to give more than you're really willing to part with. It's a general philosophy applying to pretty much everything. For instance, don't offer to do a favour, or pay for something if it'd really get on your nerves to have that offer accepted, then get nothing in return.
If you really want to get something in return, GPL or CC-SA it. If, and only if you're really deep inside willing to give something with no strings attached, and won't mind even if somebody takes that and makes millions on it while not giving you a single cent, only then BSD or public domain it.
You're not doing yourself any favours by pretending to be more altruistic than you really are. If deep down you want something in exchange for your trouble, make sure to get it, or you may regret it.
And forget about this "common courtesy" stuff. Corporations don't have it. Picture working at some huge company. Deadline is looming, project budget is tight. Even if you'd like to give something back to whoever you took something useful from, you will need your boss' authorization, and he'll need his, and perhaps it will go further up. They're almost guaranteed not to bother unless there's some good reason for it, such as the license actually requiring it.
I'd like to do the same thing. So I'm hoping somebody could give me a few hints on it.
First, how did he manage to come up with a design for the new case matching exactly all of the buttons? Do you just take some calipers and start measuring? The curved layout of the buttons, and the shape of the buttons themselves look tricky. Also I imagine that accurate positioning of screw holes is critical.
And second, how does one get such a thing manufactured? Are there places available to normal people that would take an order for a single piece or a small run, and what file format would they require? Or a place where I could get access to the hardware and operate it myself?
I would be really appreciate some pointers about how to get started.
Solar is much simpler. You just need a panel and a battery.
Burning oil is more complicated. You need an engine that can burn crude mixed with whatever it mixes with in the water (some rugged diesel engine maybe?), a pump, a tank to have the ability to move through clean water, an electric generator to power the circuitry, a battery as well (for starting the motor for instance). It's going to be heavy and complicated, more prone to failure, and harder to keep afloat. And definitely more expensive. And it'll still need to burn oil anyway, because it must collect more than it needs for itself (otherwise it wouldn't go anywhere), but that means the tank will become full at some point.
Problem is that this is the exact same thing that patent trolls do, except they actually do research instead of buying the patents. And if they ever go under, a troll might end up with them.
I support the complete elimination of the patent system, though I realize that would hit some people and companies that use it in a non-malicious manner, because I believe the overall effect will be an improvement.
But it has rules and a prescribed morality (the five precepts), an afterlife (nirvana), a hell (naraka), a prophet (buddha), divine beings (asuras and devas) and religious texts (vinaya and sutras)
Einstein's stated beliefs include none of those.
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
So no heaven, hell, nirvana or anything of the sort. Also no prescribed morality.
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.
So there is no divine force in this world, or outside it. That would seem to exclude any divine beings to me as well.
If there's no heaven, hell, a god that cares about or affects anything, there can't be a prophet either. There's nothing to make prophecies about, and the god if any isn't going to put any in the prophet's head. Without that, there's no religious text either.
Again, Einstein's belief is so thin that there's nothing to do about it. You can't go much further than compile a list of his quotes because no rules, morals or anything of the sort can be derived from that. Einsten's version of "god" as far as I can gather consists solely of a blind, automatic force that just does what it does in the same way as water flows downhill. It just seems to be another name for "the universe".
Well, I'd hardly call him religious. I think he comes closest to agnostic.
His god doesn't define morality, care about people, or affect the world. It works with rigid rules that are never deviated from, and due to this can be scientifically tested. He has nobody to pray to, no heaven and hell, no religious source of morality, and no dogma.
My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.
I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science.
I do not believe that a man should be restrained in his daily actions by being afraid of punishment after death or that he should do things only because in this way he will be rewarded after he dies. This does not make sense. The proper guidance during the life of a man should be the weight that he puts upon ethics and the amount of consideration that he has for others.
IMO, with an opinion like even if he refers to something he calls "God", he pushed it out from every corner deities normally occupy, and turned it into something that doesn't affect, prescribe, do, or care about anything. I don't think he can be really described as "religious" as that doesn't have anything in common with any mainstream religion. It's not even a "great intelligence" as you say, since he describes it as entirely automatic.
He can't be called an atheist, but I think that calling him religious would be highly misleading, as what he says has nothing to do with what 99.9% people on this planet have in mind when you say that.
I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression.
Evidently, when he speaks of "god" he sort of means "the universe", and not any biblical character.
Pretty much everything she says goes against what you say here. I'm quite sure that she has helped some people, but according to herself, the way she does it is very twisted. Some choice quotes from her address at the National Prayer Breakfast:
One day I met a lady who was dying of cancer in a most terrible condition. And I told her, I say, "You know, this terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus--a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you." And she joined her hands together and said, "Mother Teresa, please tell Jesus to stop kissing me."
Here you can see somebody who is obviously not on painkillers, and won't be, because the pain is the "kiss of Jesus" and evidently a good thing. I'm sure she'll provide a bed, and water and maybe some food, while leaving this person to die in pain while speaking about how beautiful all that is. Obviously there can't be any talk of euthanasia either. This lady would have been much better off with a normal social worker.
I had the most extraordinary experience of love of neighbor with a Hindu family. A gentleman came to our house and said: "Mother Teresa, there is a family who have not eaten for so long. Do something." So I took some rice and went there immediately. And I saw the children - their eyes shining with hunger. I don't know if you have ever seen hunger. But I have seen it very often. And the mother of the family took the rice I gave her and went out. When she came back, I asked her: "Where did you go? What did you do?" And she gave me a very simple answer: "They are hungry also." What struck me was that she knew - and who are they? A Muslim family - and she knew. I didn't bring any more rice that evening because I wanted them, Hindus and Muslims, to enjoy the joy of sharing.
Note the latest part. She's intentionally withholding food, not because she doesn't have more, or can't afford it, or anything like that. No, it's because apparently for her the image of hungry people sharing some food is beautiful. She seems to be more interested in marvelling at that "beauty" and making a point about sharing than in really helping people.
We are not social workers. We may be doing social work in the eyes of some people, but we must be contemplatives in the heart of the world. For we must bring that presence of God into your family, for the family that prays together, stays together.
Outright admission that the religion is the priority.
Her own writings show that what she seeks is not to really help people. It's to sort of immerse herself in their misery.
2. Yes, it's a good base. But it's still small and all surrounded by foreign potentially hostile land. Earth is 4.37 light years away, and supplies take 6.75 years to arrive, in very limited amounts. So if the humans send a message "Help! We need more bullets!", they can expect to get a shipment in 11 years the earliest. Even if a supply ship is already heading their way and happens to have the right stuff on it, it almost certainly isn't arriving next week.
So that means waiting for supplies is out. They have to manufacture on-site. But for that they have to go out, and the Na'vi can take their time, and just snipe people with bows when they find an opportunity. They'll probably clear the base before Earth gets the message that help is needed.
In my view, all that scary stuff they have there is mostly a deterrent. In a long term struggle it'd break down much faster than it could be replaced, and then they'd be screwed. Which is why they needed a way to land a crippling blow on the Na'vi.
3. I think this is pretty obvious from that they have the whole avatar program and scientists in place. If just rolling over the Na'vi was an acceptable option none of that would really be needed.
4. Given the distance they really can't have a meaningful conversation. But it was my understanding that what was sent to Pandora wasn't an annihilation force. Also, given the horrible expense of shipping stuff there, the shareholders most definitely won't want a war. It's their own money they're spending there, they're not a defense contractor that happily lives on tax money.
Avatar is not a good movie. It contains hokey dialogue, similar to that which has appeared in many other movies. It contains a journey of a main character through a race which is very similar to at least two other movies: Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves. It contains main characters -- the Na'vi -- who choose spectacularly ill-advised actions -- running their army of primitive warriors directly into a highly-advanced human force aided by machines. It also contains a very unlikely outcome of such a poor decision: The Na'vi win.
Actually I think the movie explains it pretty well. There are several reasons why the Na'vi can win against those odds:
1. The Na'vi are on their home territory. They're very familiar with it, and it favours them.
2. It costs an arm, a leg and both kidneys to ship something there. Even at a disadvantage, anything the Na'vi manage to destroy and anybody they kill hurt the humans a lot. Anything destoyed is very, very expensive and slow to replace, and see the next point.
3. The humans aren't doing colonization. They're not waging a war. What came to that planet is a corporation, which wants to earn money. As such, they can't blow the budget and leave it for the next president to deal with. Money, resource usage and PR will be watched very closely, and if somebody screws up badly enough they'll want their head on a stake, and now.
4. Back home, the corporation is being watched closely, and allowed to do what it's doing based on the understanding of that they'll try to reach a compromise with the natives, and not bomb them into submission. That the technological capability of nuking them all from orbit exists doesn't mean it's a viable option.
Slashdot Mirror
Glad to be proven wrong, then.
Still, I don't see why not clean it up even faster. Not like the oil is doing any good floating there. And some googling suggests that the bacteria only eat hydrocarbons, so whatever remains after that still would need to be dealt with.
How dramatic. If you decide to take that as a mortal insult, so be it. But I'm firm in my belief that nobody deserves extra payment for properly performing the job they're already being paid for doing.
Could you explain why it's needed in your profession, but not in others? For instance, why doesn't a butcher require a tip as well, why does one tip a taxi but not a bus driver, and why can't I demand a 20% extra to write the code I'm paid to write properly and on time?
I do make an exception for actual exceptional service. One example I remember is a taxi driver. Once one spent several minutes figuring out how to fit a huge monitor in the car. That certainly was exceptional service, as he didn't need to bother with something that was on the edge of making the car unsafe to drive (it got very close to blocking the shift lever), and it took a good deal of effort to get there. So of course he got a big tip for his trouble.
I'm perfectly aware the host stopped existing in 2003. I keep that around mostly as a reminder of the times when a community I belonged to was large and vibrant. Those who were in it as well should get the reference. Also it throws off nosey people ;-)
Seriously, I wonder what were you looking for there. If it was still around all you'd find is a few game mods, which seems hardly relevant to the conversation.
IMO, whether I'm right in this or not is completely independent of my current situation, qualifications and such. If you're fishing for something to use for an "ad hominem" argument (your reply suggests so), don't bother. It's bad form for arguments anyway, and I'm not going to fall for that one.
Bet your boss would really love that attitude. I'm sure he doesn't mind losing customers to keep you happy.
But it turns out it's actually your job to serve customers. If you don't do it, you get fired. So this part doesn't concern me a whole lot. If you take too long I'll just pull out my cell phone and find some way of entretaining myself, even for an hour.
Couldn't care less. My way of eating at restaurants is the following: over the weeks, systematically go from the top of the menu the bottom, skipping those things I obviously won't like. After I'm done with that I'll alternate between those I like best. I don't really want your opinion, I'll form my own.
Sorry to be blunt, but the cook interests me a whole lot more than you do. The cook is why I'm there in the first place, and you're just a replaceable cog in the mechanism.
The person who benefits from a screwed up situation is the entirely wrong person to ask whether they'd like it to stop existing. If it benefits you, of course you'll say it's a wonderful thing.
Nope, surviving just fine, thanks. Not an union member either. Unions are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. If everything is fine without one, then one isn't needed.
By that I guess you imply you live in the Land of Capitalism, where last time I checked there was a free market (in theory, at least).
And in a free market, I'm perfectly free to vote with my dollars, pay only what's required, and avoid establishments that make a big deal about tipping. Where's the problem?
Correct. You work well, you get a raise. If the boss is a jerk and you don't, you go work for somebody who pays better. You can demand a higher wage by the virtue of being a better worker. Just like any other job.
And, why would I want to tip the waitress anyway? If I was going to tip somebody it'd be the cook, but that seems to be difficult to do.
That's like asking a corrupt policeman the same sort of thing. Of course they like having extra money, duh. That doesn't mean it's a good thing to have.
What I do think is that they should earn the same amount of money, except as part of their real wage.
I'm not sure how the ubuntu installer would handle it, but grub would complain, refuse to install, and ask to manually confirm usage of a block list, which as you said is a kind of horrible solution.
And predictably happens on every single computer that gets updated, instead on just one of the few using some program with a stupid form of DRM. I think probably the first case happens quite a bit more often than the second.
It's easier to mitigate actually. Normal programs have no business at all writing there, hence you can complain to the program's maker. If enough people complain they'll get the hit.
On the other hand, MS has perfectly legitimate reasons for writing into the MBR, at least when something boot related is updated.
By "transparently" I mean quickly, 100% exactly and with no chance of something going horribly wrong, yes.
That would take a few hours, since you're not just shrinking or expanding a partition, you're moving all the 500GB or whatever of it. As such it's not a very attractive option.
Well, guess what the "embedding area" is? If it's okay to use it for something like this then what grub is doing is perfectly legitimate. If it isn't, then it's not a legitimate option for this either.
Again, the problem isn't so much shrinking it, as having to move the whole thing, which would easily take a few hours, during which anything that goes wrong risks horrible corruption.
Horrible or not, you have to deal with it. Things in the real world are rarely ideal, and if it fails to work it'll be considered to be your fault even if it isn't.
That will be even worse. Instead of 4 programs that break it, it'll break on every windows update that updates the bootloader.
Still don't get what you mean. I mean that (example numbers):
Option A:
MBR is on sector 0.
First primary partition starts on sector 64, where its boot sector is.
Option B:
MBR is on sector 0.
There's an extended partition record, pointing to sector 64.
The extended partition record points to the start of the partition, which must be on sector 65 or higher.
Thus, you can't convert transparently from primary to logical. To convert you'd have to push all the partition's data down by one sector, if it's even possible.
There's no obligation for modern systems. Old OSes require partitions to be aligned on a cylinder boundary, and don't know there's such a thing as LBA.
The 1024 cylinders limit. You don't have to do it if you have a modern BIOS.
Another reason to do it is because you boot from a filesystem that grub doesn't support yet. The ext* and reiserfs filesystems are supported fine though.
Grub doesn't require this. What you probably have is a distribution script, that takes your config file, sticks something on top and on the bottom, and writes that to the real grub config.
Also, with the blocks thing, the problem is: what if your filesystem has defragmentation, or you install a new kernel and it gets written over where the old one was? Oops, now the system doesn't boot. Block lists have to be updated every time the location on the disk changes, not just when the config does.
I have this system:
You get a tip for exceptional service.
For normal service you get nothing, but you get a regular customer.
For lousy service, I take note and go to a different bar next time.
I don't particularly care if people smile or not. Fake smiles are creepy.
You can actually install Linux into a large file hosted on a NTFS partition.
So here's a challenging case:
First partition is NTFS, 500GB free.
Next 3 partitions are primary, recovery data.
Get Linux to install and run from the NTFS partition (in an .img file), while not adding any partitions (you can't), not passing control to the NTFS boot sector (will boot windows, so won't do).
You can actually install Ubuntu in such a way, btw.
Okay, explain how that will work in the case above, something that's currently in use and supported. Remember the partition table is all full, and in the interest of user friendliness the installer can't make you delete partitions, because that's the entire point of sharing the NTFS one in the first place.
Not sure what you mean there.
No, we're on the NTFS partition here. No repartitioning needed.
You'd be surprised, but people still run DOS and Win95. Legacy stuff. Can't break it arbitrarily.
Like other people mentioned, dedicating a partition to the bootloader is undesirable, as it runs into issues with recovery partitions.
Your menu probably was hardcoded. Grub reads the menu from disk. I mean that if you have installed Linux on ext4, grub will actually read /etc/grub/menu.lst from ext4, and load the config file from it. If you think of storing it inside the MBR, then it's awfully small for things like listing multiple kernel versions with descriptive labels. That won't fit in the boot sector either, so you still must read ext4 or whatever.
The other way to do it is giving it a pointer to a list of blocks, which as you said sucks, and will break if anything on the disk moves in a way that doesn't correspond with the mapping.
I don't think you can convert transparently. In my understanding, an extended partition has an extended partition record right where the boot sector on a primary would be. To covert a primary to an extended you'd have to shrink the filesystem and push it down by several blocks so that it starts on cylinder 0 too.
It's the same thing LILO did, which is why most people use Grub now.
And the reason why is because the MBR is tiny, and has no room for code that reads say, ext4.
The MBR has no menu. The basic stuff is "find active partition, load first sector, jump to it". With Grub it's more like "load code from embedding area, run it". Which contains enough to read things like ext4 to load the rest.
Because there's no room for filesystem reading code in the MBR. Especially not for reading all the formats Linux supports at once (what if you want to boot from FAT, ext3 and zfs?)
If you're thinking grub should load the code from some fixed space in the Linux partition, then every single FS would have to agree to reserve that space. Including the ones like JFS that come from elsewhere.
In my understanding, a partition having a boot sector is a DOS convention, that other filesystems don't necessarily follow. I think 512 bytes at the start may be mostly guaranteed, but again, you're not going to read things like reiserfs in that little space, so you're back to having the same problem.
It can't read it from "other partition" because if there is a filesystem there, it has to understand it, and 446 bytes is not enough.
If you mean a special, reserved partition, then that reduces the number of primary partitions for other purposes to 3, which creates compatibility issues. And if there are 4 primary ones already, you're screwed.
Resuming: the way x86 computers boot sucks, and boot loaders have to be written with those constraints in mind. The whole "embedding area" is a horrible hack, but the alternatives have significant issues as well.
Well, some googling suggests that it's aerobic, and needs extra nitrogen and phosphorus.
So, yeah, it'll happily munch on the oil, but it consumes oxygen, and it requires nitrogen, which is a recipe for an algal bloom for yet more deoxygenation. So not only everything gets to get poisoned by the oil while it's there, they'll also suffocate when the bacteria get to it. That sounds like an awesome plan.
Exactly. If you want something in return, ask for it.
I don't give a damn if you or anybody else thinks which license is "more free", "less free", or "communist" or whatever other label you want to use for it. I use the GPL because it does what I want to. If you want to convince me that I should license my software under the BSD, then try explaining why would that be in my interest. Arguments about semantics aren't going to do it.
Sounds like they need an union
If you see that as a problem, change the license.
I've got this personal philosophy: don't offer to give more than you're really willing to part with. It's a general philosophy applying to pretty much everything. For instance, don't offer to do a favour, or pay for something if it'd really get on your nerves to have that offer accepted, then get nothing in return.
If you really want to get something in return, GPL or CC-SA it. If, and only if you're really deep inside willing to give something with no strings attached, and won't mind even if somebody takes that and makes millions on it while not giving you a single cent, only then BSD or public domain it.
You're not doing yourself any favours by pretending to be more altruistic than you really are. If deep down you want something in exchange for your trouble, make sure to get it, or you may regret it.
And forget about this "common courtesy" stuff. Corporations don't have it. Picture working at some huge company. Deadline is looming, project budget is tight. Even if you'd like to give something back to whoever you took something useful from, you will need your boss' authorization, and he'll need his, and perhaps it will go further up. They're almost guaranteed not to bother unless there's some good reason for it, such as the license actually requiring it.
I'd like to do the same thing. So I'm hoping somebody could give me a few hints on it.
First, how did he manage to come up with a design for the new case matching exactly all of the buttons? Do you just take some calipers and start measuring? The curved layout of the buttons, and the shape of the buttons themselves look tricky. Also I imagine that accurate positioning of screw holes is critical.
And second, how does one get such a thing manufactured? Are there places available to normal people that would take an order for a single piece or a small run, and what file format would they require? Or a place where I could get access to the hardware and operate it myself?
I would be really appreciate some pointers about how to get started.
Solar is much simpler. You just need a panel and a battery.
Burning oil is more complicated. You need an engine that can burn crude mixed with whatever it mixes with in the water (some rugged diesel engine maybe?), a pump, a tank to have the ability to move through clean water, an electric generator to power the circuitry, a battery as well (for starting the motor for instance). It's going to be heavy and complicated, more prone to failure, and harder to keep afloat. And definitely more expensive. And it'll still need to burn oil anyway, because it must collect more than it needs for itself (otherwise it wouldn't go anywhere), but that means the tank will become full at some point.
Problem is that this is the exact same thing that patent trolls do, except they actually do research instead of buying the patents. And if they ever go under, a troll might end up with them.
I support the complete elimination of the patent system, though I realize that would hit some people and companies that use it in a non-malicious manner, because I believe the overall effect will be an improvement.
But it has rules and a prescribed morality (the five precepts), an afterlife (nirvana), a hell (naraka), a prophet (buddha), divine beings (asuras and devas) and religious texts (vinaya and sutras)
Einstein's stated beliefs include none of those.
So no heaven, hell, nirvana or anything of the sort. Also no prescribed morality.
So there is no divine force in this world, or outside it. That would seem to exclude any divine beings to me as well.
If there's no heaven, hell, a god that cares about or affects anything, there can't be a prophet either. There's nothing to make prophecies about, and the god if any isn't going to put any in the prophet's head. Without that, there's no religious text either.
Again, Einstein's belief is so thin that there's nothing to do about it. You can't go much further than compile a list of his quotes because no rules, morals or anything of the sort can be derived from that. Einsten's version of "god" as far as I can gather consists solely of a blind, automatic force that just does what it does in the same way as water flows downhill. It just seems to be another name for "the universe".
Well, I'd hardly call him religious. I think he comes closest to agnostic.
His god doesn't define morality, care about people, or affect the world. It works with rigid rules that are never deviated from, and due to this can be scientifically tested. He has nobody to pray to, no heaven and hell, no religious source of morality, and no dogma.
IMO, with an opinion like even if he refers to something he calls "God", he pushed it out from every corner deities normally occupy, and turned it into something that doesn't affect, prescribe, do, or care about anything. I don't think he can be really described as "religious" as that doesn't have anything in common with any mainstream religion. It's not even a "great intelligence" as you say, since he describes it as entirely automatic.
He can't be called an atheist, but I think that calling him religious would be highly misleading, as what he says has nothing to do with what 99.9% people on this planet have in mind when you say that.
Er, the KKK was a group composed of Protestants. Since they all were religious I'd be very surprised if it could spliter that way.
Definitely not in the traditional way, no
Evidently, when he speaks of "god" he sort of means "the universe", and not any biblical character.
Pretty much everything she says goes against what you say here. I'm quite sure that she has helped some people, but according to herself, the way she does it is very twisted. Some choice quotes from her address at the National Prayer Breakfast:
Here you can see somebody who is obviously not on painkillers, and won't be, because the pain is the "kiss of Jesus" and evidently a good thing. I'm sure she'll provide a bed, and water and maybe some food, while leaving this person to die in pain while speaking about how beautiful all that is. Obviously there can't be any talk of euthanasia either. This lady would have been much better off with a normal social worker.
Note the latest part. She's intentionally withholding food, not because she doesn't have more, or can't afford it, or anything like that. No, it's because apparently for her the image of hungry people sharing some food is beautiful. She seems to be more interested in marvelling at that "beauty" and making a point about sharing than in really helping people.
Outright admission that the religion is the priority.
Her own writings show that what she seeks is not to really help people. It's to sort of immerse herself in their misery.
1. Point
2. Yes, it's a good base. But it's still small and all surrounded by foreign potentially hostile land. Earth is 4.37 light years away, and supplies take 6.75 years to arrive, in very limited amounts. So if the humans send a message "Help! We need more bullets!", they can expect to get a shipment in 11 years the earliest. Even if a supply ship is already heading their way and happens to have the right stuff on it, it almost certainly isn't arriving next week.
So that means waiting for supplies is out. They have to manufacture on-site. But for that they have to go out, and the Na'vi can take their time, and just snipe people with bows when they find an opportunity. They'll probably clear the base before Earth gets the message that help is needed.
In my view, all that scary stuff they have there is mostly a deterrent. In a long term struggle it'd break down much faster than it could be replaced, and then they'd be screwed. Which is why they needed a way to land a crippling blow on the Na'vi.
3. I think this is pretty obvious from that they have the whole avatar program and scientists in place. If just rolling over the Na'vi was an acceptable option none of that would really be needed.
4. Given the distance they really can't have a meaningful conversation. But it was my understanding that what was sent to Pandora wasn't an annihilation force. Also, given the horrible expense of shipping stuff there, the shareholders most definitely won't want a war. It's their own money they're spending there, they're not a defense contractor that happily lives on tax money.
Actually I think the movie explains it pretty well. There are several reasons why the Na'vi can win against those odds:
1. The Na'vi are on their home territory. They're very familiar with it, and it favours them.
2. It costs an arm, a leg and both kidneys to ship something there. Even at a disadvantage, anything the Na'vi manage to destroy and anybody they kill hurt the humans a lot. Anything destoyed is very, very expensive and slow to replace, and see the next point.
3. The humans aren't doing colonization. They're not waging a war. What came to that planet is a corporation, which wants to earn money. As such, they can't blow the budget and leave it for the next president to deal with. Money, resource usage and PR will be watched very closely, and if somebody screws up badly enough they'll want their head on a stake, and now.
4. Back home, the corporation is being watched closely, and allowed to do what it's doing based on the understanding of that they'll try to reach a compromise with the natives, and not bomb them into submission. That the technological capability of nuking them all from orbit exists doesn't mean it's a viable option.