...and who's going to do the home schooling? How are you going to send your kid to college on a one income home? Do you think we can set national policy counting on home schooling to provide educated citizens? What's the procedure to fire the home teacher who should have been subjected to a parentage certification before being allowed to procreate?
Mind you, I am not against home schooling programs. But it took a 12 year old National Spelling Bee competitor behaving like a retard to convince me there are arguments for public education.
Fascist Right wing Nutjob Centrist/Zell Miller Republicrat Olympia Snowe Republicrat Independent/Capitalist Pig Libertarian/Reform/Green Joe Lieberman Democan Centrist Democrat Liberal Weenie Anarchist/Communist Religious Zealot Damn Foreigner Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Missing any? Does one need to be removed?
Re:How about supergun or space elevator?
on
China Goes Nuclear
·
· Score: 1
I'm all for the "get it off the earth" idea, but why is everyone so dead set on sending it into the Sun?
Because there is no human endeavor which will eventually fail once. And when that rocket explodes full of nuclear waste, it will atomize and spread throughout the launch path. Resulting in a few million people dying of cancer a year or two later.
(WtF?) What, you have to turn in your firearm to the Dorm manager to be stored in the dorm gunrack? What about handguns? Why would the university even make the distinction between storing a firearm in a dorm or in a room???
...and the Vampyre Berman keep that rotting corpse of that once beloved series in an undead state, forever to roam the timeslots of UPN, never to reach its reward in the afterlife. If you loved what was once Star Trek, kill this soulless, evil, undead corpse now!
I agree with you mostly but you might want to check out the 3rd season of Enterprise if you haven't
It was the third season that convinced me to turn my back on Star Trek, period. It was horrificly lame. It made Voyager episodes (pre-7of9) watchable, by comparison. Archer mad, grrrr. T'pol does the logical, Vulcan decision and turns her back on her Vulcan career, and her people. The rest of the crew become a pack of whiners. And ugh, that transparent claptrap of a season theme of the U.S.S Enterprise fighting the terrorists, I mean Xindi. And how its okay to blow up people in the name of pre-emptive self interest. Yippee, its the best sci-fi a Bush worshiping cretin could ask for. And we know how intellectually open that audience can be. If Roddenberry was alive, he'd kill himself after seeing how Paramount raped his creation.
Oooh, Enterprise has a story line this year. Golly gee, that must make it great science fiction! How original, just like DS9, B5, Blakes7, and a hundred other TV shows before it. Oooh, the ship gets damaged and stays damaged. Gee, that makes it realistic and believeable. Just like using a transporter 100 years before they perfected it, and kicking alien ass with fledgling space faring technology. And when you don't have a holodeck, I guess you have to go with time travel and "what if" episodes instead. Everyone knows the best episodes were the holodeck episodes... Go back to the soulless Star Wars dorks you came from!
The original poster said it best: There's no sense of wonder there anymore. And if that is the case, do you really think the previous response addressed your issues? You have much better ways of spending your time than catch up on incredibly crappy Enterprise episodes. And if you watch that piece of crap, then you're supporting that piece of crap, and thus perpetuating that piece of crap. Once it was a idea with life, now its a rotting, unholy undead monster. If you loved the real Trek, let this perversion die.
That TOS episode was the *only* time Terry Farrell was truly *hot*. The whole series she was in that boring TNG uniform, with a role reminiscent of a red shirt crewman.
Its not a real convention hangover unless your first words after getting up are "oh yea, I married that chick last night". Which is not likely given the male/female ratio at Defcon.
Perhaps this might help explain the opposition towards legalizing same-sex marriages...
Incredibly stupid attitude too, considering that NW & eDirectory could make a comeback on top of a SuSE O/S. Microsoft active directory still doesn't match NW in quality or scope of tools.
What do you do when you have a wife & two kids, and you're tired of de facto leadership of Linux marketing, and you don't want to appoint a sucessor?
Answer: You cease to do the necessary things you don't feel like doing, such as determining stable releases. "Stability" ceases to be the responsibility of developers, and the core (Linus) kernel development group become irrelevant to Linux users. Eventually, kernel development will fork to whomever is best able to take the reins of community chairmanship. Because the general public will go with the kernel that is most stable, able to be used in a production environment, and least hinders developer contributions.
Take a look, I suspect Torvalds is taking lessons from Bill Gates...
Even "production" kernels can have problems. Remember the VM changes around 2.4.10?
The reason for the VM change after 2.4.10 was that 2.3 kernel never should have been released as 2.4 (until there were no fatal memory bugs). Once Linus lost confidence in that VM to become stable, he switched when offered an alternative. Perhaps the developer was right that Linus didn't incorporate his patches, but I don't grudge Linus in that decision.
The lesson to be learned should not be that newly released kernels will not be ready for production, therefore assume the kernel developers lie about stability. But that is what Linus & group is announcing.
New productions kernels deserve every developer's full attention until they're really really ready.
You sir, do not understand the meaning of "production" release. If the developer must pay full attention to a product, it means its not stable enough to ship.
If you don't like the way things are, contribute some code OR STOP BITCHING ABOUT IT.
Some people are linux users. They can't contribute useful code. Do you relegate Linux to the obsurity of the religious zealots?
More important, you make a fallacious implication. That if you contribute to the codebase, you will be heard. You can contribute as much code as Rik van Riel, but even he is not going to make a difference in what policy or quality standards Linux kernels will be released.
This was a unilateral decision by Linus Torvalds and his stable maintainer Andrew Morton, with enough support from a cabal of developers to make them feel comfortable with that decision. Bitching is the only way of letting them know their policy change sucks.
It's too early to quantify my own feelings about this move, do I feel abandoned? do I feel like jumping into kernel development?
Amen brother.
or, god forbid, do I just feel like installing FreeBSD?
Sheeit. That idea had not even occurred to me. And now I have to consider it... Yeech!
The uberdorks and the developers may not see a problem. Anyone who needs stability for a requirement (users and administrators) is about to be screwed by with this policy change. I really look at Linus's position as "We're not responsible for assuring stability in the generic kernel. Its the commercial interests that are responsible for stability."
Bugs are a fact of life in application software and computer operating systems. But there is a big difference between "only bug fixes" and "the next version can meltdown overnight". "Oh, but its an even numbered kernel, so we don't think it will melt down, but we refuse to put our reputations on the line by insisting stable is actually stable". "Stable" has become a marketing expression so that developers don't get frustrated and the commercial distributions don't appear stagnant. Better to ship out a defective piece of crap, than no crap at all. Be like Microsoft, they're sucessful.
I think the two major players that is burned with this policy change is Slackware & Debian. I can't see Debian putting out a Debian version of what they think is a stable 2.6 kernel. They'll just say stable is 2.2, and leave the experimental versions to crash & burn. Volkerding will just stick to whatever is actually stable. Its a not bad for Slackware fans if he's adventurous enough to start doing some stability modifications to 2.6 kernels.
I was laboring under the assumption that the 2.3->2.4 fiasco was an anomaly. The recent release of 2.6 made me think otherwise. I figured I'd wait until someone said, "hey, I can run this in production". But codifying "instability" in the "stable" kernel is pathetic hypocrisy. Its like a mayor saying "The city is safe, but we don't recommend you leave your apartment in the evening anymore". And it puts the linux management on the same level as Microsoft in terms of quality commitment.
Years back, I decided I wasn't going to put my leisure time into 6 different promising O/S's. I narrowed my choice to Linux or OpenBSD. I did not chose Linux because it had less bugs or was more secure than BSD. I chose it because xBSD gave me the impression they were closed cabal and extremely conservative about change. I knew Linux was going to outdevelop xBSD, be better positioned for commercial use, and was going to beat xBSD in desktop share. And most important, Linux would still work reliably, for my purposes.
I think that was a distinct difference in principles or policy at that time that made a critical difference in the fortunes of Linux and xBSD. Today, I want to use the new features in the latest Linux kernel. But I don't want to spend time constantly updating the kernel to see if all the bugs are out (and won't). It just stops being useful to me when devolves into that state. xBSD is not as closed/monolithic as it was back in 1998. I hate to think that this was the distinct change in position that relegates Linux into obscurity.
A space cowboy, a space priest, etc all in a very unrealistic setting flying about in spacecraft which much cost a small fortune just doesnt do it for me.
So lets see, in the future, there are no agro planets, no planets with cattle ranching, no religion, and no southern crackers? Whew, what a relief. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Do you think a show set in the 21st century, where people can afford supercomputers for only $300 is equally unrealistic? And where the hell is my flying car???
This is the only thing I hate about Star Trek. It was so freaking sucessful, it attracted the commercial interests that proceeded to suck out all the creativity out of the sci-fi genre. Now little droid heads like you have to ruin my entertainment yammering about how if there are no holodecks and humanoid looking aliens, its not "realistic" science fiction.
Besides, I don't recall covered wagons for hire trying to smuggle stuff from state to state. Its not a mere western, the whole premise is setup around private enterprise merchant mariners.
The only time I lose to you guys is the installation of the operating system. After that, I get to watch video movies while downloading from the video newsgroups simultaneously. (I could probably add DVD burning too, but why risk the glitch...) My $300 to your $1-2K.
Inflation. Movies out in NYC are $10. That's not the problem.
I love reading a great novel. My problem is that I don't want to read a novel anymore unless its some form of great literature. And lately, its been pretty much pulp.
However, as long as Linux is in a state where developers think that "ordinary Linux users" have to even care what a scheduler is, Linux will be a failure for mainstream desktop usage.
Are you suggesting the key to Linux's acceptance on the desktop is what CmdrTaco thinks is newsworthy on a geek website?
That's something of a misnomer, because Malda does not develop linux kernel code. And the developers were not banging his door down insisting that Malda report a story on Bossa. Developers don't give a rat's ass if users know what is a scheduler. But it is nice that their brethren are aware of available kernel development tools, hence the story!
I can't believe so many twits thought this was an insightful comment. More like finding a strawman to pontificate on the Linux community.
and a lot of these people will despise the message in this book
I can't say I despised the message. I can say I despised the book. Robert Anton Smith nailed that book dead on with his parody of it in the Illuminatus Trilogy. It was just an intensely lame soap opera that went on and on. And incredible borefest that didn't do anything to persuade the reader of the merits of her philosophic tenets. Its something Ann Coulter would consider high literature.
Man, I love that scene too. Its obviously a commentary on American culture from two foreign perspectives. I only wish I knew from what piece of literature they cribbed it off.
Um, no. Hilter took power in Germany by leveraging nationalist and racist fervor, and working popular anger about unfair WW1 reparations treaties
(Pilkul, you ignorant slut...) Hitler came to political prominence as you describe. He did not take power until he orchestrated the burning of the Reichstag, and blaming the attack on the communists. Basically, a group of undesirables, destroying a symbol of the German "democratic" government, in order to foment civil war amongst its citizens. Its the classic method (at the time) the communists rose to power. It was that fear that certainly galvanized unity behind Hitler by its German citizenry. Just because they didn't call it terrorism back then, didn't mean it wasn't, nor any of those played out concepts which was known since Pericles.
1984 is about communism, and communism is dead. It's just not very relevant anymore.
Bullsh*t. 1984 was about totalitarianism. Yes Orwell was solidly anti-communist, and yes 1984 was an inference to communist governments. But note that there were social classes in 1984's society (proles, outer circle, inner circle), and the need to maintain control over the populace by constantly fomenting war, and using nationalism and fear to keep them in line. Its not surprising you think 1984 is not relevant anymore, you can't even use what little historical knowlege you possess to apply it to modern conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
...and who's going to do the home schooling? How are you going to send your kid to college on a one income home? Do you think we can set national policy counting on home schooling to provide educated citizens? What's the procedure to fire the home teacher who should have been subjected to a parentage certification before being allowed to procreate?
Mind you, I am not against home schooling programs. But it took a 12 year old National Spelling Bee competitor behaving like a retard to convince me there are arguments for public education.
Fascist
Right wing Nutjob
Centrist/Zell Miller Republicrat
Olympia Snowe Republicrat
Independent/Capitalist Pig
Libertarian/Reform/Green
Joe Lieberman Democan
Centrist Democrat
Liberal Weenie
Anarchist/Communist
Religious Zealot
Damn Foreigner
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Missing any? Does one need to be removed?
I'm all for the "get it off the earth" idea, but why is everyone so dead set on sending it into the Sun?
Because there is no human endeavor which will eventually fail once. And when that rocket explodes full of nuclear waste, it will atomize and spread throughout the launch path. Resulting in a few million people dying of cancer a year or two later.
Not in the room, but in the dorm.
(WtF?) What, you have to turn in your firearm to the Dorm manager to be stored in the dorm gunrack? What about handguns? Why would the university even make the distinction between storing a firearm in a dorm or in a room???
Do you know any universities that will let you keep a gun in the dorm?
...and the Vampyre Berman keep that rotting corpse of that once beloved series in an undead state, forever to roam the timeslots of UPN, never to reach its reward in the afterlife. If you loved what was once Star Trek, kill this soulless, evil, undead corpse now!
It was the third season that convinced me to turn my back on Star Trek, period. It was horrificly lame. It made Voyager episodes (pre-7of9) watchable, by comparison. Archer mad, grrrr. T'pol does the logical, Vulcan decision and turns her back on her Vulcan career, and her people. The rest of the crew become a pack of whiners. And ugh, that transparent claptrap of a season theme of the U.S.S Enterprise fighting the terrorists, I mean Xindi. And how its okay to blow up people in the name of pre-emptive self interest. Yippee, its the best sci-fi a Bush worshiping cretin could ask for. And we know how intellectually open that audience can be. If Roddenberry was alive, he'd kill himself after seeing how Paramount raped his creation.
Oooh, Enterprise has a story line this year. Golly gee, that must make it great science fiction! How original, just like DS9, B5, Blakes7, and a hundred other TV shows before it. Oooh, the ship gets damaged and stays damaged. Gee, that makes it realistic and believeable. Just like using a transporter 100 years before they perfected it, and kicking alien ass with fledgling space faring technology. And when you don't have a holodeck, I guess you have to go with time travel and "what if" episodes instead. Everyone knows the best episodes were the holodeck episodes... Go back to the soulless Star Wars dorks you came from!
The original poster said it best: There's no sense of wonder there anymore. And if that is the case, do you really think the previous response addressed your issues? You have much better ways of spending your time than catch up on incredibly crappy Enterprise episodes. And if you watch that piece of crap, then you're supporting that piece of crap, and thus perpetuating that piece of crap. Once it was a idea with life, now its a rotting, unholy undead monster. If you loved the real Trek, let this perversion die.
Actually, I really liked Shatner's parody entry. His only problem was that it was blown away by Robert Goulet's submission.
That TOS episode was the *only* time Terry Farrell was truly *hot*. The whole series she was in that boring TNG uniform, with a role reminiscent of a red shirt crewman.
Perhaps this might help explain the opposition towards legalizing same-sex marriages...
Incredibly stupid attitude too, considering that NW & eDirectory could make a comeback on top of a SuSE O/S. Microsoft active directory still doesn't match NW in quality or scope of tools.
What do you do when you have a wife & two kids, and you're tired of de facto leadership of Linux marketing, and you don't want to appoint a sucessor?
Answer: You cease to do the necessary things you don't feel like doing, such as determining stable releases. "Stability" ceases to be the responsibility of developers, and the core (Linus) kernel development group become irrelevant to Linux users. Eventually, kernel development will fork to whomever is best able to take the reins of community chairmanship. Because the general public will go with the kernel that is most stable, able to be used in a production environment, and least hinders developer contributions.
Take a look, I suspect Torvalds is taking lessons from Bill Gates...
Even "production" kernels can have problems. Remember the VM changes around 2.4.10?
The reason for the VM change after 2.4.10 was that 2.3 kernel never should have been released as 2.4 (until there were no fatal memory bugs). Once Linus lost confidence in that VM to become stable, he switched when offered an alternative. Perhaps the developer was right that Linus didn't incorporate his patches, but I don't grudge Linus in that decision.
The lesson to be learned should not be that newly released kernels will not be ready for production, therefore assume the kernel developers lie about stability. But that is what Linus & group is announcing.
New productions kernels deserve every developer's full attention until they're really really ready.
You sir, do not understand the meaning of "production" release. If the developer must pay full attention to a product, it means its not stable enough to ship.
If you don't like the way things are, contribute some code OR STOP BITCHING ABOUT IT.
Some people are linux users. They can't contribute useful code. Do you relegate Linux to the obsurity of the religious zealots?
More important, you make a fallacious implication. That if you contribute to the codebase, you will be heard. You can contribute as much code as Rik van Riel, but even he is not going to make a difference in what policy or quality standards Linux kernels will be released.
This was a unilateral decision by Linus Torvalds and his stable maintainer Andrew Morton, with enough support from a cabal of developers to make them feel comfortable with that decision. Bitching is the only way of letting them know their policy change sucks.
It's too early to quantify my own feelings about this move, do I feel abandoned? do I feel like jumping into kernel development?
Amen brother.
or, god forbid, do I just feel like installing FreeBSD?
Sheeit. That idea had not even occurred to me. And now I have to consider it... Yeech!
The uberdorks and the developers may not see a problem. Anyone who needs stability for a requirement (users and administrators) is about to be screwed by with this policy change. I really look at Linus's position as "We're not responsible for assuring stability in the generic kernel. Its the commercial interests that are responsible for stability."
Bugs are a fact of life in application software and computer operating systems. But there is a big difference between "only bug fixes" and "the next version can meltdown overnight". "Oh, but its an even numbered kernel, so we don't think it will melt down, but we refuse to put our reputations on the line by insisting stable is actually stable". "Stable" has become a marketing expression so that developers don't get frustrated and the commercial distributions don't appear stagnant. Better to ship out a defective piece of crap, than no crap at all. Be like Microsoft, they're sucessful.
I think the two major players that is burned with this policy change is Slackware & Debian. I can't see Debian putting out a Debian version of what they think is a stable 2.6 kernel. They'll just say stable is 2.2, and leave the experimental versions to crash & burn. Volkerding will just stick to whatever is actually stable. Its a not bad for Slackware fans if he's adventurous enough to start doing some stability modifications to 2.6 kernels.
I was laboring under the assumption that the 2.3->2.4 fiasco was an anomaly. The recent release of 2.6 made me think otherwise. I figured I'd wait until someone said, "hey, I can run this in production". But codifying "instability" in the "stable" kernel is pathetic hypocrisy. Its like a mayor saying "The city is safe, but we don't recommend you leave your apartment in the evening anymore". And it puts the linux management on the same level as Microsoft in terms of quality commitment.
Years back, I decided I wasn't going to put my leisure time into 6 different promising O/S's. I narrowed my choice to Linux or OpenBSD. I did not chose Linux because it had less bugs or was more secure than BSD. I chose it because xBSD gave me the impression they were closed cabal and extremely conservative about change. I knew Linux was going to outdevelop xBSD, be better positioned for commercial use, and was going to beat xBSD in desktop share. And most important, Linux would still work reliably, for my purposes.
I think that was a distinct difference in principles or policy at that time that made a critical difference in the fortunes of Linux and xBSD. Today, I want to use the new features in the latest Linux kernel. But I don't want to spend time constantly updating the kernel to see if all the bugs are out (and won't). It just stops being useful to me when devolves into that state. xBSD is not as closed/monolithic as it was back in 1998. I hate to think that this was the distinct change in position that relegates Linux into obscurity.
I believe the latest slackware includes compiled versions of the 2.6 kernel. Its just not part of the automated install.
So lets see, in the future, there are no agro planets, no planets with cattle ranching, no religion, and no southern crackers? Whew, what a relief. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Do you think a show set in the 21st century, where people can afford supercomputers for only $300 is equally unrealistic? And where the hell is my flying car???
This is the only thing I hate about Star Trek. It was so freaking sucessful, it attracted the commercial interests that proceeded to suck out all the creativity out of the sci-fi genre. Now little droid heads like you have to ruin my entertainment yammering about how if there are no holodecks and humanoid looking aliens, its not "realistic" science fiction.
Besides, I don't recall covered wagons for hire trying to smuggle stuff from state to state. Its not a mere western, the whole premise is setup around private enterprise merchant mariners.
I use a PC. It runs Linux. What viruses?
The only time I lose to you guys is the installation of the operating system. After that, I get to watch video movies while downloading from the video newsgroups simultaneously. (I could probably add DVD burning too, but why risk the glitch...) My $300 to your $1-2K.
Inflation. Movies out in NYC are $10. That's not the problem.
I love reading a great novel. My problem is that I don't want to read a novel anymore unless its some form of great literature. And lately, its been pretty much pulp.
You blew the joke. You should have said "64K should be enough for anybody."
However, as long as Linux is in a state where developers think that "ordinary Linux users" have to even care what a scheduler is, Linux will be a failure for mainstream desktop usage.
Are you suggesting the key to Linux's acceptance on the desktop is what CmdrTaco thinks is newsworthy on a geek website?
That's something of a misnomer, because Malda does not develop linux kernel code. And the developers were not banging his door down insisting that Malda report a story on Bossa. Developers don't give a rat's ass if users know what is a scheduler. But it is nice that their brethren are aware of available kernel development tools, hence the story!
I can't believe so many twits thought this was an insightful comment. More like finding a strawman to pontificate on the Linux community.
and a lot of these people will despise the message in this book
I can't say I despised the message. I can say I despised the book. Robert Anton Smith nailed that book dead on with his parody of it in the Illuminatus Trilogy. It was just an intensely lame soap opera that went on and on. And incredible borefest that didn't do anything to persuade the reader of the merits of her philosophic tenets. Its something Ann Coulter would consider high literature.
You cite the Heritage foundation for outsourcing facts???
Let me guess, you use NewsMax to get your news, adn the Aberdeen group and Tocqville foundation for your linux related information.
Loser.
Man, I love that scene too. Its obviously a commentary on American culture from two foreign perspectives. I only wish I knew from what piece of literature they cribbed it off.
Um, no. Hilter took power in Germany by leveraging nationalist and racist fervor, and working popular anger about unfair WW1 reparations treaties
(Pilkul, you ignorant slut...) Hitler came to political prominence as you describe. He did not take power until he orchestrated the burning of the Reichstag, and blaming the attack on the communists. Basically, a group of undesirables, destroying a symbol of the German "democratic" government, in order to foment civil war amongst its citizens. Its the classic method (at the time) the communists rose to power. It was that fear that certainly galvanized unity behind Hitler by its German citizenry. Just because they didn't call it terrorism back then, didn't mean it wasn't, nor any of those played out concepts which was known since Pericles.
1984 is about communism, and communism is dead. It's just not very relevant anymore.
Bullsh*t. 1984 was about totalitarianism. Yes Orwell was solidly anti-communist, and yes 1984 was an inference to communist governments. But note that there were social classes in 1984's society (proles, outer circle, inner circle), and the need to maintain control over the populace by constantly fomenting war, and using nationalism and fear to keep them in line. Its not surprising you think 1984 is not relevant anymore, you can't even use what little historical knowlege you possess to apply it to modern conditions.