If the Vatican sees a pedophile and does nothing of it, then the Vatican is giving it's reputation and telling people that this man/woman is of Vatican quality
Basically, the bill proposes that for each state, a 6% cut would be taken from all wagers
First, what? Of all wagers, win or lose? Right now, you can hypothetically wager for an indefinite amount of time if the odds of winning are 50/50 (which they aren't but play along) and you never fall to zero. If each transaction is taxed, then you lose 6% on each hand, automatically, no matter what? I hope that's just poorly written.
Second, I'm against expanding gambling. Proponents point to Las Vegas and think that Spitsville, Arkansas will be just like that if only they legalize Keno. Well, no. What always happens is that the people who can least afford new, expensive habits end up losing everything. Crime goes up. Social service costs go up. Law enforcement costs go up. And the expenses are never covered by the trickle of tax revenue. Seriously, if you're against regressive taxes, then you kind of have to be against the realities of gambling. Warren Buffett isn't going to go broke on the craps tables, but Joe Sixpack very well might.
But more than that, I hate the outright lies told by the gambling lobbyists when they're trying to get it legalized. I lived in Missouri when they were voting on whether to add riverboat gambling. The idea is that all the taxes from it would go to education. How can you vote against that and take money away from the kids? Well, they were kind of telling the truth. What really happened was that if the education budget was $X (I forget the actual numbers involved), and the tax revenue from gambling was $Y, then the new education budget was still exactly $X. The difference was that $Y of it came from gambling, and the rest came from the general fund as usual. Furthermore, the total amount of taxes collected did not go up, as a lot of the hypothetical extra revenue was lost to decreased sales taxes, lowered property values, etc., while service expenditures went up quite a bit. A couple of years into the grand experiment, it looked like Missouri was losing about 3*$Y from their bottom line. The casino's owners, on the other hand, were quite happy to export the revenues to their own state and let someone else clean up the mess.
I'm pretty libertarian in my views. If you want to do something and it doesn't harm anyone but yourself, then have at. Contrary to the tone of the summary, I have no moral objections to gambling whatsoever. In practice, though, gambling seems to cause a lot of collateral damage around its participants. I guess I lump it in with smoking in restaurants; although I understand the arguments for allowing it, I have to admit that I've enjoyed not having it around anymore.
updating the bios of your motherboard from a floppy is still one of the more fool proof methods of doing it.
Not even close. To upgrade my newish Gigabyte motherboard, I put a BIOS image file on a FAT-formatted USB flash drive, reboot, and hit a certain key. It pops up a list of devices to browse and I select the flash drive, then it pops up a list of BIOS images on that drive and I select the one I want. Then it copies that image into whichever of the two flash locations on the motherboard that it didn't boot from and reboots. If the new BIOS works, great. If not, then it reboots back into the known-working BIOS.
I'm not parroting anything, and I'm not a denier. My point is that valid results are still valid even when someone we dislike achieves them. Again, if the oil companies (or Greenpeace or Al Gore or PETA) publish independently verifiable results, then their work stands.
As applies here, if the national academy publishes their data and methodology so that third parties can examine them - even third parties who disagree with their conclusions - and their results hold, then it lends credibility to their hypothesis. Hiding it with the excuse that they don't want people taking it out of context does not lend credibility.
And again, I'm not a denier. While I'm not entirely convinced by AGW proponents, the preponderance of evidence makes it seem pretty darn likely. I'm very interested in how this episode plays out, though.
Because your hard drive is far larger than your RAM, and it's still a lot quicker than the 'net. But out of curiosity, why don't you like disk caching?
Thank you! People say that this is "wasting time", then advocate manually partitioning your data and moving files around to their most appropriate locations. No thanks; I'd much rather let the computer (which knows what data I'm actually accessing) handle it for me.
Trick with FBSD - it doesn't believe in removing L2ARC devices yet.
You're wrong:
$ sudo zpool add tank cache ada1 $ sudo zpool status [...] cache ada1 ONLINE 0 0 0 $ sudo zpool remove tank ada1 $ sudo zpool status [nothing about a cache device]
You're probably thinking of ZIL devices. You can't remove them in FreeBSD, but the version of ZFS in Solaris (that's being ported to FreeBSD right now) supports removing them.
For network resources there is no such thing as configuring life-time and the browser disk cache is the first thing I disable (using a spinning system disk for internet cache is stupidity IMHO).
For the love of God, why? You like refetching every little icon or JavaScript snippet on every page you visit?
Anybody I know who's still there is using GigaNews or one of the other premium services.
I talked my ISP into giving me a/29 netblock in exchange for hosting their newsfeed. I set up a copy of Leafnode-2 in a FreeBSD jail and pointed it at some public servers. Very few other customers use it and they subscribe to text groups, so the traffic overhead is negligible for me.
Putting data into peoples hands whoa aren't experts often leads to bad things. See every non expert who believed Wakefield study because they didn't understand how to interpret data. In that case kids died , and kids are still dying.
What about the legitimate expert who wants access to the data so he can make an informed decision on its validity? Do we lock down the source because some bad people might look at it, or open the source so that the experts can, too?
The only thing that is proven is that denialists are funded by the oil industry
I couldn't possibly care less. I don't give a rat's butt if it's the Einstein Is A Dumbass Council that demonstrates that it's really E=mc^2.1 if their results are independently verifiable.
Barely any browsers support it, and its video support isn't guaranteed in any browser.
Yeah, it's limited to the subset of all browsers that aren't IE (8 and older; 9 claims to support it).
Flash is the opposite, and has been that way for years.
Flash is fine if and only if you are using Windows. On any of the other couple of platforms it runs on, it's a CPU-and-battery eating hog that never seems to work quite right. Windows might have a majority market share of desktop systems, but it's on a minority of all common computing devices if you include notebooks and smartphones. As far as I know, pretty much every other platform has at least one HTML5-capable browser. What's a bigger audience, then: people who won't install a browsing platform other than IE6-8 plus Flash, or people who have access to a better browser?
Maybe it's because a lot of us don't especially like either company, but would rather see Apple come out on top of this particular struggle. As anyone as I find Apple's behavior a lot of the time, the idea of a web controlled by Adobe and Flash is a lot scarier (and a lot more plausible) anything I can imagine Apple pulling off.
You don't understand what just happened between Adobe and Apple, then.
I understand exactly what happened; I just don't care. Both are controlling companies that hate the concept of competition, but at least Apple makes stuff that's pleasant to use. Of the two, I can ignore Apple, but Adobe won't rest until they've made every site on the Internet use their technology that runs like crap on my Linux laptop.
And I still stand by my assertion that buying a iPhone for the explicit purpose of running Flash apps is a fundamentally bad decision.
I didn't say a word about changing the interface - I said they should rewrite it in something other than their homegrown junk. Yes, junk: for example, their file dialog is even worse than Gnome's, and I didn't think that was possible.
You could keep the same buttons and the same menus in the same places with the same shortcuts but do it in a way that didn't suck. Of course, Adobe will never do this because they feel they have the market locked up and wouldn't admit that their stuff is less than perfect.
But Flash uses H.264 for video, at least on YouTube (which is the biggest Flash object distributor). You could implement Flash right up to the point that it wraps video, at which case you're in the exact same position as if you were trying to play H.264 directly.
Daring Fireball Quotes in his post “Someone has it backwards — it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe’s Flash is closed and proprietary,” but H.264 isn't open,
Regardless of your take on whether H.264 is open, can we agree that publishing H.264 video with a <video> tag is at least as open as publishing H.264 video wrapped inside a Flash container?
Well Apple already wanted Adobe to completely rewrite Photoshop in Objective C instead of maintaining it in a cross-platform language. They didn't do this, so now Mac gets the worse version.
Poor, poor Adobe. They only had a decade to port the Photoshop GUI to ObjC, C, or C++ - the languages supported by Cocoa. Again, I'm not a big Apple fan. While they make some neat stuff, they do plenty of screwy things that make me not want to deal with them. Still, it's hard to sympathize in any way with Adobe's positions in this war.
In the last couple weeks, I've chatted with folks that play such games, and all of them based their purchase of the iPhone based upon their ability to play their facebook games 24/7 (at any hour of the day).
Your friends are poor researchers because the iPhone and iPod Touch have never supported Flash. That's why the iPad flap was always so funny to me. It could be summarized as "Adobe is angry that Apple won't start supporting an app that it's never supported on its other portable platforms".
What would it take to get Adobe to quit infecting all platforms with their overhyped junk? Yes, yes, people love Photoshop. Just imagine that app, though, rewritten with a modern GUI toolkit and brand new underpinnings so that it wasn't a steaming pile. Now realize that it'll never happen because Apple fanboys have nothing on Adobe advocates and Adobe has no reason to spend development money making it better instead of adding shiny new features. (BTW, I'm not a Gimp fan, either - it's fully possible to dislike both apps on their own demerits.)
While I'm not a huge fan of Jobs, I sincerely thank him for driving a stake into Flash's corrupted heart. Would that the rest of Adobe's hoggish wares die with it.
+1 on the inverter. It opens so many possibilities! We have a portable DVD player with composite inputs, and used it with a GameCube on a cross-country trip.
It states that an item's usefullness increases ten-fold as soon as it is thrown away. Hoarding is only natural.
To a point, yeah. But I've gotten to where I keep last-generation equipment, cables, etc., but pitch anything older. I can imagine needing a parallel cable or an IDE ribbon, but the AUI transceiver went out the door. I'll keep memory as old as PC-133 for the benefit of my kids' Athlon 1.4GHz PC, but SIMMs get trashed. I can imagine finding a use for a 100GB hard drive (like using a USB adapter with it to move gigs of music from home to work), but that 4GB UW SCSI drive gets used for target practice.
I think that's what separates me from a hoarder: I have a (reasonable, containable) stash of relatively recent hardware that gets handed out to friends who need more memory or an emergency replacement hard drive. Anything truly out-of-date gets tossed or recycled.
Slashdot Mirror
If the Vatican sees a pedophile and does nothing of it, then the Vatican is giving it's reputation and telling people that this man/woman is of Vatican quality
Oh, but they are.
Basically, the bill proposes that for each state, a 6% cut would be taken from all wagers
First, what? Of all wagers, win or lose? Right now, you can hypothetically wager for an indefinite amount of time if the odds of winning are 50/50 (which they aren't but play along) and you never fall to zero. If each transaction is taxed, then you lose 6% on each hand, automatically, no matter what? I hope that's just poorly written.
Second, I'm against expanding gambling. Proponents point to Las Vegas and think that Spitsville, Arkansas will be just like that if only they legalize Keno. Well, no. What always happens is that the people who can least afford new, expensive habits end up losing everything. Crime goes up. Social service costs go up. Law enforcement costs go up. And the expenses are never covered by the trickle of tax revenue. Seriously, if you're against regressive taxes, then you kind of have to be against the realities of gambling. Warren Buffett isn't going to go broke on the craps tables, but Joe Sixpack very well might.
But more than that, I hate the outright lies told by the gambling lobbyists when they're trying to get it legalized. I lived in Missouri when they were voting on whether to add riverboat gambling. The idea is that all the taxes from it would go to education. How can you vote against that and take money away from the kids? Well, they were kind of telling the truth. What really happened was that if the education budget was $X (I forget the actual numbers involved), and the tax revenue from gambling was $Y, then the new education budget was still exactly $X. The difference was that $Y of it came from gambling, and the rest came from the general fund as usual. Furthermore, the total amount of taxes collected did not go up, as a lot of the hypothetical extra revenue was lost to decreased sales taxes, lowered property values, etc., while service expenditures went up quite a bit. A couple of years into the grand experiment, it looked like Missouri was losing about 3*$Y from their bottom line. The casino's owners, on the other hand, were quite happy to export the revenues to their own state and let someone else clean up the mess.
I'm pretty libertarian in my views. If you want to do something and it doesn't harm anyone but yourself, then have at. Contrary to the tone of the summary, I have no moral objections to gambling whatsoever. In practice, though, gambling seems to cause a lot of collateral damage around its participants. I guess I lump it in with smoking in restaurants; although I understand the arguments for allowing it, I have to admit that I've enjoyed not having it around anymore.
updating the bios of your motherboard from a floppy is still one of the more fool proof methods of doing it.
Not even close. To upgrade my newish Gigabyte motherboard, I put a BIOS image file on a FAT-formatted USB flash drive, reboot, and hit a certain key. It pops up a list of devices to browse and I select the flash drive, then it pops up a list of BIOS images on that drive and I select the one I want. Then it copies that image into whichever of the two flash locations on the motherboard that it didn't boot from and reboots. If the new BIOS works, great. If not, then it reboots back into the known-working BIOS.
You can keep your floppy-based system, thanks. :-)
I'm not parroting anything, and I'm not a denier. My point is that valid results are still valid even when someone we dislike achieves them. Again, if the oil companies (or Greenpeace or Al Gore or PETA) publish independently verifiable results, then their work stands.
As applies here, if the national academy publishes their data and methodology so that third parties can examine them - even third parties who disagree with their conclusions - and their results hold, then it lends credibility to their hypothesis. Hiding it with the excuse that they don't want people taking it out of context does not lend credibility.
And again, I'm not a denier. While I'm not entirely convinced by AGW proponents, the preponderance of evidence makes it seem pretty darn likely. I'm very interested in how this episode plays out, though.
Because your hard drive is far larger than your RAM, and it's still a lot quicker than the 'net. But out of curiosity, why don't you like disk caching?
Thank you! People say that this is "wasting time", then advocate manually partitioning your data and moving files around to their most appropriate locations. No thanks; I'd much rather let the computer (which knows what data I'm actually accessing) handle it for me.
Trick with FBSD - it doesn't believe in removing L2ARC devices yet.
You're wrong:
You're probably thinking of ZIL devices. You can't remove them in FreeBSD, but the version of ZFS in Solaris (that's being ported to FreeBSD right now) supports removing them.
For network resources there is no such thing as configuring life-time and the browser disk cache is the first thing I disable (using a spinning system disk for internet cache is stupidity IMHO).
For the love of God, why? You like refetching every little icon or JavaScript snippet on every page you visit?
Really? How many death threats have they gotten from making fun of Jesus and Christians, and how many episodes were pulled or censored in response?
Anybody I know who's still there is using GigaNews or one of the other premium services.
I talked my ISP into giving me a /29 netblock in exchange for hosting their newsfeed. I set up a copy of Leafnode-2 in a FreeBSD jail and pointed it at some public servers. Very few other customers use it and they subscribe to text groups, so the traffic overhead is negligible for me.
Putting data into peoples hands whoa aren't experts often leads to bad things. See every non expert who believed Wakefield study because they didn't understand how to interpret data. In that case kids died , and kids are still dying.
What about the legitimate expert who wants access to the data so he can make an informed decision on its validity? Do we lock down the source because some bad people might look at it, or open the source so that the experts can, too?
The only thing that is proven is that denialists are funded by the oil industry
I couldn't possibly care less. I don't give a rat's butt if it's the Einstein Is A Dumbass Council that demonstrates that it's really E=mc^2.1 if their results are independently verifiable.
In case you haven't noticed the web HTML5 can't do what Flash can and is even slower than hardware accelerated Flash.
Simply reading that made me dumber.
Barely any browsers support it, and its video support isn't guaranteed in any browser.
Yeah, it's limited to the subset of all browsers that aren't IE (8 and older; 9 claims to support it).
Flash is the opposite, and has been that way for years.
Flash is fine if and only if you are using Windows. On any of the other couple of platforms it runs on, it's a CPU-and-battery eating hog that never seems to work quite right. Windows might have a majority market share of desktop systems, but it's on a minority of all common computing devices if you include notebooks and smartphones. As far as I know, pretty much every other platform has at least one HTML5-capable browser. What's a bigger audience, then: people who won't install a browsing platform other than IE6-8 plus Flash, or people who have access to a better browser?
Maybe it's because a lot of us don't especially like either company, but would rather see Apple come out on top of this particular struggle. As anyone as I find Apple's behavior a lot of the time, the idea of a web controlled by Adobe and Flash is a lot scarier (and a lot more plausible) anything I can imagine Apple pulling off.
You don't understand what just happened between Adobe and Apple, then.
I understand exactly what happened; I just don't care. Both are controlling companies that hate the concept of competition, but at least Apple makes stuff that's pleasant to use. Of the two, I can ignore Apple, but Adobe won't rest until they've made every site on the Internet use their technology that runs like crap on my Linux laptop.
And I still stand by my assertion that buying a iPhone for the explicit purpose of running Flash apps is a fundamentally bad decision.
I didn't say a word about changing the interface - I said they should rewrite it in something other than their homegrown junk. Yes, junk: for example, their file dialog is even worse than Gnome's, and I didn't think that was possible.
You could keep the same buttons and the same menus in the same places with the same shortcuts but do it in a way that didn't suck. Of course, Adobe will never do this because they feel they have the market locked up and wouldn't admit that their stuff is less than perfect.
Apple seems to think H.264 is the one true codec to rule them all.
Well, Apple, Microsoft, every BluRay manufacturer, and the other 30+ members of the MPEG-LA H.264 group.
But Flash uses H.264 for video, at least on YouTube (which is the biggest Flash object distributor). You could implement Flash right up to the point that it wraps video, at which case you're in the exact same position as if you were trying to play H.264 directly.
Daring Fireball Quotes in his post “Someone has it backwards — it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe’s Flash is closed and proprietary,” but H.264 isn't open,
Regardless of your take on whether H.264 is open, can we agree that publishing H.264 video with a <video> tag is at least as open as publishing H.264 video wrapped inside a Flash container?
Well Apple already wanted Adobe to completely rewrite Photoshop in Objective C instead of maintaining it in a cross-platform language. They didn't do this, so now Mac gets the worse version.
Poor, poor Adobe. They only had a decade to port the Photoshop GUI to ObjC, C, or C++ - the languages supported by Cocoa. Again, I'm not a big Apple fan. While they make some neat stuff, they do plenty of screwy things that make me not want to deal with them. Still, it's hard to sympathize in any way with Adobe's positions in this war.
In the last couple weeks, I've chatted with folks that play such games, and all of them based their purchase of the iPhone based upon their ability to play their facebook games 24/7 (at any hour of the day).
Your friends are poor researchers because the iPhone and iPod Touch have never supported Flash. That's why the iPad flap was always so funny to me. It could be summarized as "Adobe is angry that Apple won't start supporting an app that it's never supported on its other portable platforms".
What would it take to get Adobe to quit infecting all platforms with their overhyped junk? Yes, yes, people love Photoshop. Just imagine that app, though, rewritten with a modern GUI toolkit and brand new underpinnings so that it wasn't a steaming pile. Now realize that it'll never happen because Apple fanboys have nothing on Adobe advocates and Adobe has no reason to spend development money making it better instead of adding shiny new features. (BTW, I'm not a Gimp fan, either - it's fully possible to dislike both apps on their own demerits.)
While I'm not a huge fan of Jobs, I sincerely thank him for driving a stake into Flash's corrupted heart. Would that the rest of Adobe's hoggish wares die with it.
+1 on the inverter. It opens so many possibilities! We have a portable DVD player with composite inputs, and used it with a GameCube on a cross-country trip.
It states that an item's usefullness increases ten-fold as soon as it is thrown away. Hoarding is only natural.
To a point, yeah. But I've gotten to where I keep last-generation equipment, cables, etc., but pitch anything older. I can imagine needing a parallel cable or an IDE ribbon, but the AUI transceiver went out the door. I'll keep memory as old as PC-133 for the benefit of my kids' Athlon 1.4GHz PC, but SIMMs get trashed. I can imagine finding a use for a 100GB hard drive (like using a USB adapter with it to move gigs of music from home to work), but that 4GB UW SCSI drive gets used for target practice.
I think that's what separates me from a hoarder: I have a (reasonable, containable) stash of relatively recent hardware that gets handed out to friends who need more memory or an emergency replacement hard drive. Anything truly out-of-date gets tossed or recycled.