I just wasted 4 days struggling with WinXP boot disks, network installs, NTFS for MSDOS, and voodoo dolls to try to rescue 40 Gigs of data from a nearly dead drive. The drive didn't show up at all when plugged in. Some rescue tools could see the data but not retrieve it or copy it. Four days of tearing apart machines and trying anything I could download.
Then I read this Slashdot article. Downloaded Knoppix. Burned a CD. Booted from the CD. Everything auto-configured: nearly-dead disk, network, everything. I could see ALL my files! Mounted a huge drive from a good machine over the network. Dragged all my files from the nearly-dead disk to the good disk on a different machine. Done. Saved.
Struggle with Windows products: 4 days. Download Knoppix: 1 hr. Burn CD: 5 minutes. Save data: 5 minutes.
> I have an internet cafe > install their software
Stop fighting your customers. Let them do whatever they want, and have a nightly process replace the hard drive with a ghost image of a fresh install. New computer every day.
Re:I did some work with this stuff...
on
Emergence
·
· Score: 1
> I picked the eyes out of [...] ants >... a fun...
> students didn't acquire the skills taught. > put them online for free download
Wow, you make it sound so appealing. Reminds me of a friend who grabbed something from the fridge, took a bite, and said, 'Ugh this is awful. Im going to throw this out. Do you want it?'
I'm picturing a ring of air jets buried under the sand around my desert evil-fortress. When footstep vibrations are detected the jets pump out massive amounts of air into the sand, thus causing the victim to sink under the sand.
So I'm sitting on a bus listening to these two middle-aged moms sitting behind me.
One says: 'My son gots in trouble yesterday at school. He hit another kid.' The other: 'Dats terrible. Wadya do?' First one: 'I tolds him hitting is bad. It's wrong. Never ever hit anyone. Den I slapped him upside da head so hard he spun aroun'. I learned him to NEVER hit anyone'.
I've tried this technique. For a couple of years I did get more "chicks" than ever. They were all stupid materialistic sluts (then again, at the time so was I). Don't get me wrong - it was a great experience and a lot of fun for a while. It was a good experience to have, and a great 'confidence' builder. But it wears out.
After I stopped being an A-hole I managed to date some quality, challenging women who were my equals. Much less action but much more interesting.
> People have done this for years. I think it's fair of the TV execs to think you will do it now.
No, that isn't realistic anymore. No more than expecting people to get up and walk over to their TV sets to change the channel. I imagine it was quite a bit easier to keep people watching the same network when they had to get off their butts to change to another channel. I remember growing up without remotes. Technology has moved on. Habits change.
> If you know you are going to miss the last 3-4 minutes of a show, you might be less likely to TIVO it. > 1. Add minutes to end of shows > 2. Decrease TIVO usage > 3. More viewers see more commericals > 4. Profit. > It makes perfect sense.
No, it makes absolutely NO sense at all. If I'm going to miss some of a show, true I will not TIVO it. That means I will stop watching that show completely. There's no way in hell I would rearrange my personal schedule just to watch a TV show. If I can't TIVO it I don't watch it.
Well John, I respect the open minded tone of your post. While we fundamentally disagree (I think) on the "accuracy" of religion vs. science, I think you brought up a very good point.
In another post I pointed out that many religious zealots make blatently false claims, such as the 'Grand Canyon was recently created by a (the?) great flood'. These religious zealots have very little actual understanding of the subtle points of their own religion and only spout what they have been told by their contemporary leaders.
But as much as I can point to all these uninformed religous people, you can just as easily point to all the uninformed people that spout the latest pseudo-scientific "finding" they read in People magazine without the slightest understanding of it's true meaning.
You put a lot of words in my mouth that I never uttered, so I will clarify.
> You clearly believe that science, given enough resources and time, will figure out the truth about everything (at least until it hits Gödel and Heisenberg)
No, I never stated that science will discover everything. Science will, however, discover many more things up to the limit of what is knowable; limited by, as you said, Heisenberg and Gödel.
> You state the problem of "who created the creator?"
Not me. Wrong post.
> many of you here DO have an almost religious faith in the infallibility and comprehensive nature of science.
Well, I can't speak for "many of us here", but for myself I certainly believe what my logic and my senses have demonstrated to be true. The scientific method has built in self-correcting methods. Religious faith does not.
I am not claiming religion is false. I am simply claiming that the results of science are true. I am not claiming the results found by science are as "important" as the questions religion addresses, and thus science can somehow replace religion. Again, I am simple stating that science finds accurate facts. Religion serves a different purpose, and does NOT find provably accurate facts. Perhaps because of the nature of the questions religion raises it cannot (at this time) attempt to prove or disprove it's assumptions.
However, the important point that this thread brings up is that many religious believers like to claim that their religion and science are mutually exclusive and that science is false. This is blatently untrue and casts great doubt on all of the claims of any religious believer who would say such an obviously false thing. Their attempt at "propaganda" instead of promoting their ideas, serves to disclaim their religion in the eyes of most logical people.
The bottom line is anybody who claims evolution is false and the Grand Canyon was recently creating in a great flood is WRONG. There is a great preponderance of evidence to that. There may be more subtle direction behind the laws of nature that caused evolution to be possible, but the fact remains evolution happens.
Religion addresses so many vital questions as to the nature of ourselves that it is a shame so many people make religion seem to be something for the foolish.
> having FAITH in your religion of science is not much different from the faith required in other religions
You are SO incorrect. The defining difference between science and a religion is exactly that I do NOT have to have faith in science for it to be true.
Science is based on the principle that every fact must be viewed suspiciously and verified by as many different means as possible. Once a "fact" has withstood the test of many verifications we can assume that we have found the nearest description of the truth until we have better means of testing at which point we will no-doubt further refine the state of knowledge.
Every evidence we can find shows us that evolution happens. Gravity happens. Electricity happens. Stars and planets coalesce out of interstellar gas and the remnants of supernovae. Our understanding of these things is CORRECT because they have been tested in many different ways, by different people with different viewpoints. And still we know that these phenomena are accurate but incomplete descriptions that will be further refined in the future.
Now: 'God made everything and everyone in six days and is pissed at how you are behaving'. That is not a scientific theory or fact. It cannot be tested in any way. One person long ago wrote it down, and all of the rest have agreed with that first writer. It may be true or it may be false but since it cannot be tested it has nothing to do with science. Even worse, people are actively discouraged from trying to criticize or test religious beliefs, thus insuring they will always remain just articles of faith without proof.
That's amazing. Check out the 2nd floor window in the middle of the third building. I'm pretty sure they are shagging right up against the glass! Bet they never suspected a satellite eye-in-the-sky was recording their act for history.
Slashdot Mirror
I just wasted 4 days struggling with WinXP boot disks, network installs, NTFS for MSDOS, and voodoo dolls to try to rescue 40 Gigs of data from a nearly dead drive. The drive didn't show up at all when plugged in. Some rescue tools could see the data but not retrieve it or copy it. Four days of tearing apart machines and trying anything I could download.
Then I read this Slashdot article. Downloaded Knoppix. Burned a CD. Booted from the CD. Everything auto-configured: nearly-dead disk, network, everything. I could see ALL my files! Mounted a huge drive from a good machine over the network. Dragged all my files from the nearly-dead disk to the good disk on a different machine. Done. Saved.
Struggle with Windows products: 4 days.
Download Knoppix: 1 hr.
Burn CD: 5 minutes.
Save data: 5 minutes.
Thank you.
> In fact, I have yet to see a twelve year old girl or an eighty year old woman sued for pirating porn off Kazaa
However, I have seen a twelve year old girl and an eighty year old woman getting off playing pirates in porn.
> cell phones, commercials, children climbing the back of my chair, and the dude smoking in front of me, I think it's a safe bet I'd rather stay home
Sounds like MY home.
If they can do it, so can any hacker/cracker/virus writer. That's a good enough reason to never touch DRM inflicted Microsoft media files.
> I have an internet cafe
> install their software
Stop fighting your customers.
Let them do whatever they want, and have a nightly process replace the hard drive with a ghost image of a fresh install.
New computer every day.
> I picked the eyes out of [...] ants ... a fun ...
>
Um...
Get out more...
Please...
> students didn't acquire the skills taught.
> put them online for free download
Wow, you make it sound so appealing.
Reminds me of a friend who grabbed something from the fridge, took a bite, and said, 'Ugh this is awful. Im going to throw this out. Do you want it?'
> If Slashdot is teaching you more about writing then school, your school is SERIOUSLY FUCKED.
Are you saying Slashdot is teaching him more about writing, and then later teaching him more about school? Oh... I see... it's irony...
cool...
I'm picturing a ring of air jets buried under the sand around my desert evil-fortress. When footstep vibrations are detected the jets pump out massive amounts of air into the sand, thus causing the victim to sink under the sand.
So I'm sitting on a bus listening to these two middle-aged moms sitting behind me.
One says: 'My son gots in trouble yesterday at school. He hit another kid.'
The other: 'Dats terrible. Wadya do?'
First one: 'I tolds him hitting is bad. It's wrong. Never ever hit anyone. Den I slapped him upside da head so hard he spun aroun'. I learned him to NEVER hit anyone'.
> Money plus A-hole equals chicks..
I've tried this technique. For a couple of years I did get more "chicks" than ever. They were all stupid materialistic sluts (then again, at the time so was I). Don't get me wrong - it was a great experience and a lot of fun for a while. It was a good experience to have, and a great 'confidence' builder.
But it wears out.
After I stopped being an A-hole I managed to date some quality, challenging women who were my equals. Much less action but much more interesting.
> People have done this for years. I think it's fair of the TV execs to think you will do it now.
No, that isn't realistic anymore.
No more than expecting people to get up and walk over to their TV sets to change the channel.
I imagine it was quite a bit easier to keep people watching the same network when they had to get off their butts to change to another channel. I remember growing up without remotes.
Technology has moved on. Habits change.
> If you know you are going to miss the last 3-4 minutes of a show, you might be less likely to TIVO it.
> 1. Add minutes to end of shows
> 2. Decrease TIVO usage
> 3. More viewers see more commericals
> 4. Profit.
> It makes perfect sense.
No, it makes absolutely NO sense at all. If I'm going to miss some of a show, true I will not TIVO it. That means I will stop watching that show completely.
There's no way in hell I would rearrange my personal schedule just to watch a TV show. If I can't TIVO it I don't watch it.
> Thanks Tail
How long before this shows up in a porn movie?
> its makers plan to program the robot in English -- not for export, but to teach the language to Japanese children
Repeat after me:
Somebody set up us the bomb.
What you say !!
Take off every 'zig' !!
Move 'zig'.
For great justice.
I found this video clip of the Japanese robots they will be selling to old people to avoid senility.
This could be interesting.
What is the most inexpensive hardware with enough OOMPH to run this?
I looked at Mini-ITX systems, and the HUSH grabbed my eye. Then the price grabbed me somewhere else.
And I don't really want to get an XBOX then modify it, so don't give me the obvious answer...
Well John, I respect the open minded tone of your post. While we fundamentally disagree (I think) on the "accuracy" of religion vs. science, I think you brought up a very good point.
In another post I pointed out that many religious zealots make blatently false claims, such as the 'Grand Canyon was recently created by a (the?) great flood'. These religious zealots have very little actual understanding of the subtle points of their own religion and only spout what they have been told by their contemporary leaders.
But as much as I can point to all these uninformed religous people, you can just as easily point to all the uninformed people that spout the latest pseudo-scientific "finding" they read in People magazine without the slightest understanding of it's true meaning.
You put a lot of words in my mouth that I never uttered, so I will clarify.
> You clearly believe that science, given enough resources and time, will figure out the truth about everything (at least until it hits Gödel and Heisenberg)
No, I never stated that science will discover everything. Science will, however, discover many more things up to the limit of what is knowable; limited by, as you said, Heisenberg and Gödel.
> You state the problem of "who created the creator?"
Not me. Wrong post.
> many of you here DO have an almost religious faith in the infallibility and comprehensive nature of science.
Well, I can't speak for "many of us here", but for myself I certainly believe what my logic and my senses have demonstrated to be true. The scientific method has built in self-correcting methods. Religious faith does not.
I am not claiming religion is false. I am simply claiming that the results of science are true. I am not claiming the results found by science are as "important" as the questions religion addresses, and thus science can somehow replace religion. Again, I am simple stating that science finds accurate facts. Religion serves a different purpose, and does NOT find provably accurate facts. Perhaps because of the nature of the questions religion raises it cannot (at this time) attempt to prove or disprove it's assumptions.
However, the important point that this thread brings up is that many religious believers like to claim that their religion and science are mutually exclusive and that science is false. This is blatently untrue and casts great doubt on all of the claims of any religious believer who would say such an obviously false thing. Their attempt at "propaganda" instead of promoting their ideas, serves to disclaim their religion in the eyes of most logical people.
The bottom line is anybody who claims evolution is false and the Grand Canyon was recently creating in a great flood is WRONG. There is a great preponderance of evidence to that. There may be more subtle direction behind the laws of nature that caused evolution to be possible, but the fact remains evolution happens.
Religion addresses so many vital questions as to the nature of ourselves that it is a shame so many people make religion seem to be something for the foolish.
> having FAITH in your religion of science is not much different from the faith required in other religions
You are SO incorrect.
The defining difference between science and a religion is exactly that I do NOT have to have faith in science for it to be true.
Science is based on the principle that every fact must be viewed suspiciously and verified by as many different means as possible.
Once a "fact" has withstood the test of many verifications we can assume that we have found the nearest description of the truth until we have better means of testing at which point we will no-doubt further refine the state of knowledge.
Every evidence we can find shows us that evolution happens. Gravity happens. Electricity happens. Stars and planets coalesce out of interstellar gas and the remnants of supernovae.
Our understanding of these things is CORRECT because they have been tested in many different ways, by different people with different viewpoints. And still we know that these phenomena are accurate but incomplete descriptions that will be further refined in the future.
Now: 'God made everything and everyone in six days and is pissed at how you are behaving'. That is not a scientific theory or fact. It cannot be tested in any way. One person long ago wrote it down, and all of the rest have agreed with that first writer. It may be true or it may be false but since it cannot be tested it has nothing to do with science. Even worse, people are actively discouraged from trying to criticize or test religious beliefs, thus insuring they will always remain just articles of faith without proof.
> flashes last 1/60 of a second
> you probably wouldn't notice problems until your robot farm population became unmanageable
Well, assuming my robots need to "look" at least once a second, I'd say a robot population of 60 would have problems.
No, it means you have to install XP from behind a NAT box or firewall, then download and install SP2 while still behind the NAT box or firewall.
Then, of course, there is no reason not to STAY behind the NAT or firewall.
> In Korea $x Are Only For Old People
Ok, I missed the memo on the new meme. Could someone explain to me why we have moved from Soviet Russia to Korea?
> Kind of like this? ;-)
That's amazing. Check out the 2nd floor window in the middle of the third building. I'm pretty sure they are shagging right up against the glass!
Bet they never suspected a satellite eye-in-the-sky was recording their act for history.
> your kids still take to wearing the same rags for months on end, only it's not funny anymore
Looks down at holes in jeans.
Tugs on frayed shirt collar.
Wiggles big toe back into sock.
Thank goodness my wife dresses the kids...