I realize that I'm pretty old-fashioned by Slashdot standards, but I believe that it's my duty to raise my children in a moral environment. Yes, I do believe that my morals are the correct ones; if I didn't, I'd change them. It has nothing to do with harm. Rather, I just don't want to force adult content (whether sex, nudity, violence, or the evening news) onto my preschool-age children. By the time they reach their teenage years, they'll have started to develop their own worldview and my responsibility at that time will shift to guidance and support. Right now, though, I'd rather not explain pictures of decapitations or sexual innuendos to the little girl running around in her My Little Pony pajamas.
Perhaps that might be true if this article was even close to accurate. However, this story had nothing at all to do with the EU or the EU government.
No, but many of the posts sure do. Lately we've had quite a few stories about erosion of rights in Europe. Every single time, a group of posters starts yelling that at least they don't get offended at seeing a breast on TV, as if that somehow made the bigger story go away.
I would be perfectly happy to let the whole meme die once and for all. I understand that this is Slashdot, though, and you're bound to get a lot of that. In much the same way, I can absolutely guarantee that my earlier post will start sliding back from being moderated +5 since I didn't admit that Americans are stupid and repressed.
Believe it or not, I also don't let my 4-year-old daughter (the oldest of my brood) watch violent shows. You can call me protective of my preschool children, but I don't think I've ever been inconsistent.
I worded that poorly; I should've been we, or even they since I didn't watch the Super Bowl. The point I wanted to make, though, is that the choice should belong to the parents. Even if I don't mind a quick flash of skin it should be my decision.
I thought the whole deal was much ado about nothing, but I understand why some people were upset. We can discuss this rationally; there's no need to get personal about it.
Hey, I'm with you completely. I was opposing the idea that Americans shouldn't have an opinion on European freedom simply because we're irritated at Janet Jackson. Some people will ignore the erosion of their own rights as they gleefully laugh out our "repressed" country.
You turn on a news channel these days and what do you hear?
That's why I, as a parent, don't let the kids see news channels until I see what's playing. I didn't get the choice of screening Ms. Janet's chest. That is why people were upset.
Amen. You know, I'd kind of like to read "Mein Kampf" - not because I admire Hitler, but because I'd be interested to hear first-hand how such a monster came to be. If that book were banned, then I am powerless to watch for those conditions occurring again. Santayana said that "those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it." In certain parts of the world people who claim to be looking out for society's best interests are making it illegal to study that history. I'm completely at a loss to understand how that can be a good thing.
Hate speech is repugnant, but banning it is even worse.
Otherwise it's simple to engineer the problems with racism and the main cause of racism out of a socialist society to begin with; by eliminating the possibility of ENVY and GREED.
I'm an upper middle class white male. Given that, which of these is true:
I hate black people because I'm greedy and envy them.
I hate black people because they're greedy and envy me.
Black people hate me because I'm greedy and envy them.
Black people hate my because they're greedy and envy me.
Since you've offered a simple explanation for the supposed continued existence of racism, I really want to know whether I'm the source or target. If you can't pick one of those four and defend it, then shut up and admit that society is a lot more complex than you're making it out to be.
s/some/all/. You don't get 3g of lateral acceleration without serious downforce. I heard a long time ago that the typical F1 car hits its weight in downdraft at 60mph, but have no evidence to support that.
What are the real benefits -- apart from satisfying abstract programming ideals -- of leaving out the one line of configuration settings (it's not code, it's a tweak) for compatability with a product that was designed for a different operating system?
First, it was designed for a particular operating system, it was designed for a particular API. If the new OS supports the same API as the old one to the point that all documented interfaces still work in accordance with the documentation, then any breakage is the fault of the developers and not the OS vendor. Second, the problem is that by extending the API beyond its documented limits, you're effectively creating a whole new API to code against. What happens when a new developer unwittingly triggers a compatibility patch and figures hey, it works, so let's use it. If their trigger condition is similar (but not identical) to the one being trapped for the first application, then future OS releases now have to handle the original API, the original set of patches, and a new set of patches to handle the differences between the old patched API and the new OS. Down this path lies insanity.
Failing to include the line creates hassles for both the OS publisher
It does for Microsoft, because they've created a tradition of bending their system to support broken applications. Now everyone has been trained to blame Microsoft for any compatibility issues they find, instead of the people who wrote the broken code in the first place.
Do you also believe Sony made an error in making PS1 games playable on PS2?
Now you're inventing strawmen and I'm ending the discussion.
You jest, but Usenet's comp.sys.amiga hierarchy used to be infested by a guy named Steve Giovanella who insisted that Amigas are at least 1000 times faster (yes, literally) than modern PCs (comparing a '94-vintage Amiga to a '01 model Athlon) because drivers were commonly in firmware instead of RAM, so they were "hardware based" instead of "software based".
I can't explain his entire argument because, well, it didn't make a whole lot of sense even then. Google has the whole mess archived.
I had just switched from Amigas to Unix a couple of years earlier and still like and respected my old platform of choice. Man, it was embarrassing to be associated with his ilk.
The idea of special-case code is abhorrent to software engineers. It's ugly, fragile, and a maintenance nightmare.
Do you feel that Linux is a viable candidate for the consumer desktop? Would you argue that Linux can be as "user friendly" as Windows?
Yes and yes. I think it's far more user friendly than a Windows desktop. When I have to use a Windows system, I'm completely lost. The shortcuts don't work right, copy-and-paste is wrong, and nothing's where I expect it to be. Wait - did that sound strange to you? Now you know how I feel every time I hear Windows users that Unix desktops are difficult.
The average consumer writes letters, browses the web, and reads email. Unix has excellent applications for all of those tasks. Whenever I hear that Unix isn't ready for the desktop, what I'm usually really hearing is someone complaining that a particular task that very few users would ever try on Windows is more difficult on Unix.
And where did you get this weird idea about "punishment"? There's no malice in ignoring hackish code that ignores a published API or explicit coding standard. You're reading too much into the situation.
It is from me. If they hadn't fixed it, then other developers would've gotten the message that either you play by the rules, or you get hosed when the accidental feature you've been relying on goes away. Now they know that if they can only get enough market share, then Microsoft will bend those features around their local compatibility problems.
Put another way, if a Unix app bombs due to poor coding practices, do you blame that version of Unix for not "supporting" that application, and do you expect the OS vendor to make an application-specific patch to make it work again? No way! It's one thing if an application reveals a flaw in the OS that needs to be fixed, but this is an entirely different animal.
I also reccomend setting the spin down time onm the drives manually with hdparm.
NO NO NO NO NO. Repeat: NO. Don't do that. Really, don't. Drives, particularly the high-RPM types you're likely to find in servers, do not like to be cycled a lot; it's the single most stressing thing you can do to one. You will dramatically shorten your drives' livespans if you do this.
That went right over your head. Ken Olsen, the President of DEC, made those comments in 1984. It's kind of a "640K is enough for anybody" sort of thing, except that Mr. Olsen actually said this.
I thought it was pretty funny and relevant, personally.
Before everyone jumps down my throat, I realize that it's slower than hardware RAID...
Many benchmarks show the exact opposite, except when dealing with high-end RAID cards. Why? Because the average CPU on a system with a RAID is going to be much more powerful than anything you're likely to find on a low- to medium-range hardware adapter. I use software RAID on a number of FreeBSD servers and it absolutely flies.
The major downside is that you cannot (as least I don't know how to) hot-swap drives.
That's a function of the hardware and OS. One of the above-mentioned FreeBSD servers is in a nice IBM server case with hot-swappable front-access LVD drives. The swap process is:
Run vinum stop <diskname> to shut down the RAID device.
Run camcontrol stop/dev/<device> to turn off the drive.
Swap the drives.
Run camcontrol start/dev/<device> to turn on the drive.
Run dd if=raidconfig_<diskname> of=/dev/<device> to install the software RAID parameters at the beginning of the drive.
Run vinum start <diskname> to start the RAID device.
Watch the LEDs flash as the volumes are rebuilt, and slip out to type up an invoice.
There's no reason you can't do hot-swappable software RAID. If there is, then someone forgot to tell me server.
Re:Yep, any day now. By which I mean next 100000 d
on
Is This The Big One?
·
· Score: 1
That's so incredibly wrong that it's not even funny. Imagine the (likely) case where the fault isn't exactly vertical. There are two California-in-the-ocean scenarios:
1) A cross-section of the fault slants like this, as seen facing North:
California / Rest of US
If that fault served as a major support for that edge of the tectonic plate, and during a quake the western plate slides further west, then it will also likely slide down the slope of the fault.
2) The fault slants like this:
California \ Rest of US
If the quake results in the plate bearing California to move inland, then it will be subsumed by at the faultline.
If you don't believe that faultlines can cause land to rise or fall in elevation, then I guess you also don't believe in these "mountain" things that people keep talking about.
Producing a better product isn't good enough. You need a SIGNIFICANTLY better product.
I can legally use it, modify it, and distribute it without owing a penny to anyone. Since the sound quality and compression are at least as good as MP3, that makes chosing Vorbis a no-brainer for me.
"Significantly better" doesn't even begin to explain the utility gap between the two; since MP3 is legally encumbered and I don't have an explicit license to use it, and I'm reasonably certain that my MP3-encoder-of-choice vendor hasn't paid the required royalties to the Fraunhofer Institute, I have no clear legal right to even make MP3 files. Since MP3 has a usefuless of zero for me, and Vorbis has a usefulness greater than zero, I leave it to the reader to decide how many percent better "x" is than nothing.
they could have shut down the sites but allowed the owners of the blogs to grab the data. It would probably have been less traffic in the few days before shutdown then normal traffic.
These are blogs. The owners are the ones reading them.
Locking out the owners and only allowing guests would probably cut the bandwidth usage by about 95%.
Revisiting this thread, it's kind lame that you were moderated all the way down. You didn't sugarcoat your questions but they all seemed reasonable enough. I tried to answer you in kind; too bad the mods didn't do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a died-in-the-wool Republican and just did the same thing. Please don't lump that idiot from Utah in with the rest of us.
I realize that I'm pretty old-fashioned by Slashdot standards, but I believe that it's my duty to raise my children in a moral environment. Yes, I do believe that my morals are the correct ones; if I didn't, I'd change them. It has nothing to do with harm. Rather, I just don't want to force adult content (whether sex, nudity, violence, or the evening news) onto my preschool-age children. By the time they reach their teenage years, they'll have started to develop their own worldview and my responsibility at that time will shift to guidance and support. Right now, though, I'd rather not explain pictures of decapitations or sexual innuendos to the little girl running around in her My Little Pony pajamas.
No, but many of the posts sure do. Lately we've had quite a few stories about erosion of rights in Europe. Every single time, a group of posters starts yelling that at least they don't get offended at seeing a breast on TV, as if that somehow made the bigger story go away.
I would be perfectly happy to let the whole meme die once and for all. I understand that this is Slashdot, though, and you're bound to get a lot of that. In much the same way, I can absolutely guarantee that my earlier post will start sliding back from being moderated +5 since I didn't admit that Americans are stupid and repressed.
Believe it or not, I also don't let my 4-year-old daughter (the oldest of my brood) watch violent shows. You can call me protective of my preschool children, but I don't think I've ever been inconsistent.
I thought the whole deal was much ado about nothing, but I understand why some people were upset. We can discuss this rationally; there's no need to get personal about it.
Hey, I'm with you completely. I was opposing the idea that Americans shouldn't have an opinion on European freedom simply because we're irritated at Janet Jackson. Some people will ignore the erosion of their own rights as they gleefully laugh out our "repressed" country.
Congrats on mentioning stormfront.org and earthfirst.org in the same sentence and getting modded +5! I see that someone wasn't paying attention. :-)
That's why I, as a parent, don't let the kids see news channels until I see what's playing. I didn't get the choice of screening Ms. Janet's chest. That is why people were upset.
Hate speech is repugnant, but banning it is even worse.
I'm an upper middle class white male. Given that, which of these is true:
Since you've offered a simple explanation for the supposed continued existence of racism, I really want to know whether I'm the source or target. If you can't pick one of those four and defend it, then shut up and admit that society is a lot more complex than you're making it out to be.
s/some/all/. You don't get 3g of lateral acceleration without serious downforce. I heard a long time ago that the typical F1 car hits its weight in downdraft at 60mph, but have no evidence to support that.
And then you can send a salesman to all of them in record time!
First, it was designed for a particular operating system, it was designed for a particular API. If the new OS supports the same API as the old one to the point that all documented interfaces still work in accordance with the documentation, then any breakage is the fault of the developers and not the OS vendor. Second, the problem is that by extending the API beyond its documented limits, you're effectively creating a whole new API to code against. What happens when a new developer unwittingly triggers a compatibility patch and figures hey, it works, so let's use it. If their trigger condition is similar (but not identical) to the one being trapped for the first application, then future OS releases now have to handle the original API, the original set of patches, and a new set of patches to handle the differences between the old patched API and the new OS. Down this path lies insanity.
Failing to include the line creates hassles for both the OS publisher
It does for Microsoft, because they've created a tradition of bending their system to support broken applications. Now everyone has been trained to blame Microsoft for any compatibility issues they find, instead of the people who wrote the broken code in the first place.
Do you also believe Sony made an error in making PS1 games playable on PS2?
Now you're inventing strawmen and I'm ending the discussion.
I can't explain his entire argument because, well, it didn't make a whole lot of sense even then. Google has the whole mess archived.
I had just switched from Amigas to Unix a couple of years earlier and still like and respected my old platform of choice. Man, it was embarrassing to be associated with his ilk.
Do you feel that Linux is a viable candidate for the consumer desktop? Would you argue that Linux can be as "user friendly" as Windows?
Yes and yes. I think it's far more user friendly than a Windows desktop. When I have to use a Windows system, I'm completely lost. The shortcuts don't work right, copy-and-paste is wrong, and nothing's where I expect it to be. Wait - did that sound strange to you? Now you know how I feel every time I hear Windows users that Unix desktops are difficult.
The average consumer writes letters, browses the web, and reads email. Unix has excellent applications for all of those tasks. Whenever I hear that Unix isn't ready for the desktop, what I'm usually really hearing is someone complaining that a particular task that very few users would ever try on Windows is more difficult on Unix.
And where did you get this weird idea about "punishment"? There's no malice in ignoring hackish code that ignores a published API or explicit coding standard. You're reading too much into the situation.
It is from me. If they hadn't fixed it, then other developers would've gotten the message that either you play by the rules, or you get hosed when the accidental feature you've been relying on goes away. Now they know that if they can only get enough market share, then Microsoft will bend those features around their local compatibility problems.
Put another way, if a Unix app bombs due to poor coding practices, do you blame that version of Unix for not "supporting" that application, and do you expect the OS vendor to make an application-specific patch to make it work again? No way! It's one thing if an application reveals a flaw in the OS that needs to be fixed, but this is an entirely different animal.
NO NO NO NO NO. Repeat: NO . Don't do that. Really, don't. Drives, particularly the high-RPM types you're likely to find in servers, do not like to be cycled a lot; it's the single most stressing thing you can do to one. You will dramatically shorten your drives' livespans if you do this.
I thought it was pretty funny and relevant, personally.
Many benchmarks show the exact opposite, except when dealing with high-end RAID cards. Why? Because the average CPU on a system with a RAID is going to be much more powerful than anything you're likely to find on a low- to medium-range hardware adapter. I use software RAID on a number of FreeBSD servers and it absolutely flies.
The major downside is that you cannot (as least I don't know how to) hot-swap drives.
That's a function of the hardware and OS. One of the above-mentioned FreeBSD servers is in a nice IBM server case with hot-swappable front-access LVD drives. The swap process is:
There's no reason you can't do hot-swappable software RAID. If there is, then someone forgot to tell me server.
1) A cross-section of the fault slants like this, as seen facing North:
If that fault served as a major support for that edge of the tectonic plate, and during a quake the western plate slides further west, then it will also likely slide down the slope of the fault.2) The fault slants like this:
If the quake results in the plate bearing California to move inland, then it will be subsumed by at the faultline.If you don't believe that faultlines can cause land to rise or fall in elevation, then I guess you also don't believe in these "mountain" things that people keep talking about.
Especially when compared to AVI, MP3, DivX, and other obviously-named popular data formats.
I can legally use it, modify it, and distribute it without owing a penny to anyone. Since the sound quality and compression are at least as good as MP3, that makes chosing Vorbis a no-brainer for me.
"Significantly better" doesn't even begin to explain the utility gap between the two; since MP3 is legally encumbered and I don't have an explicit license to use it, and I'm reasonably certain that my MP3-encoder-of-choice vendor hasn't paid the required royalties to the Fraunhofer Institute, I have no clear legal right to even make MP3 files. Since MP3 has a usefuless of zero for me, and Vorbis has a usefulness greater than zero, I leave it to the reader to decide how many percent better "x" is than nothing.
I tried to answer you; did I miss the important stuff?
These are blogs. The owners are the ones reading them.
Locking out the owners and only allowing guests would probably cut the bandwidth usage by about 95%.
Revisiting this thread, it's kind lame that you were moderated all the way down. You didn't sugarcoat your questions but they all seemed reasonable enough. I tried to answer you in kind; too bad the mods didn't do the same.