It means you can't even afford to run your own mail server or have someone do it for you.
Yeah, or that I know that my business is not running emailservers, and my time is better spend doing other stuff...
This might matter in the "we run Exchange-server because we're ENTERPRISE and important"-segment, but in the "getting shit done" segment, GMail is very very very good value for money ($0 or $50/user/year for the ENTERPRISE-woo-we're-important-plan).
Oh, and you do know that you can use your own domain on GMail, completely transparently, right?
First of all, scene releases are _never_ compressed; it's always done with the -0 argument, [...] This was more of an issue before Alexader Roshal released source code (note:not FOSS) to decompress rar archives. So, historical, and pointless. And anyway, just an excuse if there's any point in using RAR anyway. Let's see..
Second, people often have parts of, or complete, scene releases and they are unwilling to unrar them (often because it's an intermediary, like a shell account somewhere where law isn't a problem). So they should use BitTorrent. Run a seed on your [strike]compromised windows host[/strike] "shell account".
Third, [....] social customs of the scene (I am not going to detail those here), thus, "breaking up" (ie, altering) the original scene release is seen as rude. Oh, I think we're at the core of the problem. Pale teenagers in their mothers basements getting hurt feelings. I appreciate that someone will rip the Lost episodes in HD pretty much as they are being broadcast, and I actually look for some "group names" in the torrents I get - because they provide one file, not a RAR. In other words, provide what people want, and they will respect you for that. Make their life hard, and they will not care about your 1998 social customs. Like anything else in life.
Fourth, [...]fitting the archives onto physical media works better Yawn. 1998 called, they want their infrastructure back. Harddrives are cheaper than dirt. Five years ago "the scene" at my college exchanged 250 gb harddrives.
Fifth, archives are split due to poor data integrity on some transfer protocols SO USE BITTORRENT! It easier and faster and better and more fun, but of course less 'leet than using [strike]compromised windows hosts[/strike] "shell accounts"
Sixth, [...] Thus, there become efficiency arguments for archive splitting;[...]it is almost as though every time a new challenge is presented to the scene, splitting in some way helps to solve it. No, BitTorrent does ALL this for you. ALL of it.
AC because I'm not stupid enough to expose my knowledge of this either to law enforcement, or to the scene (who might just hand me over for telling you this - it has been done). Badass gangster!
Suffice to say that this is more complex than you understand, and that even this level of incomplete explanation is rare. What? Moving files around on the internet is "more complex" than we understand? It probably the simplest fucking thing there is.
Let me put it very simple for you:
1) Multi-file RARs made sense back when people got their stuff from FTPs and newsgroups.
2) It's the past. It's pure nostalgia. Get over it. If you're not using your "scene" FTP servers as Torrent seeds instead, you're wasting your resources.
Not quite. Communism says that, not only are all people equal, but that all people own all the property. [....] In this sense, Open Source is actually rather close to communism, in the sense that a GPL tool is free for all to use, share and modify. Since the GPL deals specifically with ownership of the code (copyright), just with some limitations to what you can do with that ownership (not preventing other peoples modifications), it's not communism, because that ownership is in the hand of the creator, i.e. the owner of the production facility (since people own themselves and are free to sell the output of their work for a fee=salary).
On the other hand, since communism is not so much about everybody owning everything, but more about the workers owning the means of production, you could argue that self-employed programmers live in voluntary communism. But that's regardless of their choice of tools. As long as the worker owns (the right to use, and the right to dispose of the outcome of) his copy of visual studio, he's still good to go.
But it's pointless anyway. The core of communism deals with the distribution of scarce resources, specifically wealth. Software is not a scarce resource.
No they won't. They will still make all their decisions based on price, all other things being equal. Exactly - and now they're making open source drivers one of those things, which then are no longer equal.
Consider the choice between the sub-standard $10 component with closed source drivers vs. the superior $12 component. Call the producer of the latter and say, "we need 50.000, but only if you slap an open source license on the driver", and see what happens.
This money thing is a zero sum game. [....] This wealth has been EXTRACTED from users (poor and rich alike). Please read just a single economics textbook.
As for the zero-sum game; look up growth. For the all-caps extraction; you might consider a chapter on opportunity cost.
Registering an.su domain can be expression of a desire for a country with stable market economy, working democracy and rule of law and order rather than a bunch of mafia men.
I think you're confusing.su with.us.
OK, I'll bite anyway. Stable economy, yes, but stable in it's utter failure to secure even a stable food production. The only market economy in the Sovjet Union was that in the black market. Working democracy, maybe in some theoretical sense, but in reality democracy requires freedom of speech and of the press. Sovjet Union was nowhere near those. Rule of law - absolutely not. There is a large number of reports of court-rulings being handed down politically, with no means of appeal.
Ironically, these qualities are found in the US and western Europe (and more and more in post-Sovjet eastern Europe). I mean, there are a bunch of other ideals that the Sovjet Union did achieve, such as equality, social coherence, zero unemployment etc. etc. (even at devestating costs, some, including me, would argue) - so why would you pick those ideals of the west to measure?
If I paid for first-class, I'd much prefer to be seated at the very last. I don't want 25 rows of common people walking past me, if I could be drinking another glass of champagne in the lounge.
Well, yes, but the limitations of bubblesort is tied to the assumption that there's only thread working on the problem - in the boarding queue you have n threads, for a problemsize of n, which eliminates the square execution time of bubblesort - the boarding queue bubblesort will execute in O(n), which is pretty close to optimal, given the overhead of explaining a more complicated algorithm, which has the limiting factor of single-threaded (the announcer) execution.
Re:No? There are commercial applications...
on
Open US GPS Data?
·
· Score: 1
Assuming Germany (80mln people) is all urban (it's not) it would take (80mln/40k) 2.000 dedicated mappers, who has to be evenly spread geographically.
It looks like the TATU girls (russian pop, one red-head, one black-haired - and definitely hitting some lesbian notes in their videos and CD covers), although I can't find a cover that looks like that - maybe it's for the musicplayer, displaying the cover of the currently playing song.
The dry cleaners were a small business, and the money he was asking for would have closed their shop down and permanently saddled them with debt. Best Buy is a major corporation that can afford this payout. It will sting them, but not completely bankrupt them.
I'm sure it's just pointing out the difference scale, and the fact that CPG knew he would ruin these people for life and so on - but it should be pointed out that in a free society, a firm's liability scales with the offence, not it's financial capability.
I am so sick and tired of Christians claiming "ownership" of morality. Here's a news bulletin: CHRISTIANS DID NOT INVENT MORALITY.
Good for you. Can we discuss something I've said, rather what you wanted to hear?
We have archeological as well as modern examples of thousands of societies who have had no exposure to a christian religion who seemed to function just fine.
Yes. But would you care to show me any that's lasted for very long that doens't believe in some sort of deity?
What I find humerous is that you seem to think religion is the only thing holding you back from killing and raping.
What I find humorous is that you talk about feelings and compassion in a reply in which you lead by calling me an asshole, while you obviously didn't care to read what I wrote. If that's your idea of compassion, I'd recommend you'd get some dictionary help right away. Just so you don't have to go back and read it, my statement was that if there is no purpose for up being here, why do we refrain from mentioned raping and murdering. Which led me to conclude that there must be such a purpose (I assumed that intelligent people could deduce that). This was in reply to a guy who asked why there had to be a "why" next to the "how". Which again has nothing to do with me or anyone else belonging to Christianity or any other religion.
But, hey, I wrote that I consider myself a Christian, so I must five minutes away from blowing something up, that's obvious.
My post was not so much about faith in God - but about whether or not there is a "why" as the OP asked. Your statement implies a basics premise - that survival is worth pursuing (if we don't feel we have a purpose in the world, beyond securing the survival of others, why bother?). I agree with you completely that furthering society is necessary, and that is my point to the OP: it's a *why*. Then I went on to investigate where that purpose comes from - you call it the organism of earth, I call it religion. Both have to do with what (someone thinks) is best for humanity at large. And I don't think we disagree all that much, given how I don't believe in a metaphysical god implies that I don't think a such can write books. The interpretation of the Bible does, by the way, change when proved non-beneficial. It has done so several times in history - but that's a discussion for another thread.
But why does there need to be a reason? Can things simply not be ? I find it curious that we believe that there has to be an answer to 'why' questions.
Why do I exist ? Is that really a meaninful question ? It implies that I must be here for some purpose.
If there is no why, then we are here for no reason at all. And if we are here for no reason at all, why behave nicely? Why do you think raping and murder is wrong (assuming you do)?
If we are here for no reason at all, what is the justification that I can't just kill left and right, for the hell of it - other then being killed myself, which, given there is no purpose, doesn't matter? Why do I care about raising my children right, and treating others with respect?
If there is an abstract, permanent higher power that we're all ultimately answering to, then it makes sense to follow certain rules, the ones we call morality and ethics. Believing in a god is not prerequisite to behaving nicely, but recognizing the huge impact religion have had on the formation of modern day society is important - and I don't think discrediting everything religion, past and present, with a wave of the hand (which is what many atheists seem to do) is a very sensible thing to do.
As GP said, it's a philosophical question. Because if you believe we are here for no reason at all, but still care about poor people, drug abuse, the environment and war in remote countries, then you are acting extremely irrationally.
I don't believe in a metaphysical god that can intervene, but I do believe in Christian values and morality, and act irrationally according to those, and that makes me a Christian, in my logic.
Dude... the total energy consumption remains constant. Think about it. For the capacitors to run the monitor that long, they MUST HAVE DRAWN THE POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Dude, it's O(1) instead of O(N) (where N is the time the monitor is off) per power cycle.
Sure, for significatly low N's, it might end up using a little more power, but I'm sure they did the math.
The problem is that carbon credits suggests that carbon pollution is a resource, that we have n units of carbon pollution, and we should make the most of them - but what we really want it to limit carbon pollution as much as possible. Carbon credits is the wrong solution to the right problem - it just moves the pollution, it doesn't eliminate it.
When enough companies turn green, and there is sure a trend in that direction (granted, also because of carbon credits), they all want to sell thier credits. When supply exceeds demand, price will drop - which means that the incentive to pollute goes up (assuming that operating a low-emission version of a given business is more expensive than running the old, high-emission version). Consider this scenario: Caddillac buys enough carbon credit cheap enough that they can sell a zero-emission Escalade, simply by stuffing enough carbon credits in the trunk? Net win: 0.
The market economy right solution to carbon pollution, is to consider it an externality. Simply impose a tax on carbon emissions - probably a few cents per. kg carbon. This will provide a direct incentive to lower emissions, that doesn't become smaller as technology advances.
The difference, and it is a big one, is that google is processing the text you transport through their mechanism to discern information to use against you. Yes, I view advertisers and advertising as primarily being targeted to be used against the consumer. It isn't uncommon for people to view advertising as intrusive and a bad thing. Even in this new world of google-worship.
If you think advertising is "being used against you", get your ass off Googles free (as in beer) offerings. Luckily many others consider it a very nice idea that companies will pay us (in services) for our attention.
But your point isn't that advertising bothers YOU, because it doesn't, because you're ever-so-smart and can filter it out. It's the unwashes masses that can't decide for themselves, and you've taken it upon you to make sure they won't get to make that decision.
God I hate "consumer protection". Well, I don't, I hate all the idiots that want to limit my freedom in the name of "protecting" me.
Slashdot Mirror
Set the JAVA_HOME environment variable to the path of the JRE you want to use. It's commonly done in a .bat file launching the application.
This might matter in the "we run Exchange-server because we're ENTERPRISE and important"-segment, but in the "getting shit done" segment, GMail is very very very good value for money ($0 or $50/user/year for the ENTERPRISE-woo-we're-important-plan).
Oh, and you do know that you can use your own domain on GMail, completely transparently, right?
omg it happened on 9/11 coincidence i dont think so the govenment-ford conspiracy is so busted now omg omg!!1!
On the other hand, since communism is not so much about everybody owning everything, but more about the workers owning the means of production, you could argue that self-employed programmers live in voluntary communism. But that's regardless of their choice of tools. As long as the worker owns (the right to use, and the right to dispose of the outcome of) his copy of visual studio, he's still good to go.
But it's pointless anyway. The core of communism deals with the distribution of scarce resources, specifically wealth. Software is not a scarce resource.
Ummm... CNN's Wolf Blitzer - the Republican parrot.
Consider the choice between the sub-standard $10 component with closed source drivers vs. the superior $12 component. Call the producer of the latter and say, "we need 50.000, but only if you slap an open source license on the driver", and see what happens.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to revert that.
As for the zero-sum game; look up growth. For the all-caps extraction; you might consider a chapter on opportunity cost.
No, too young. But I did go to Belarus, where the dictator-like president celebrates the Sovjet ideal of beating up people you don't agree with.
Commonwealth of Independent States
I think you're confusing
OK, I'll bite anyway. Stable economy, yes, but stable in it's utter failure to secure even a stable food production. The only market economy in the Sovjet Union was that in the black market.
Working democracy, maybe in some theoretical sense, but in reality democracy requires freedom of speech and of the press. Sovjet Union was nowhere near those.
Rule of law - absolutely not. There is a large number of reports of court-rulings being handed down politically, with no means of appeal.
Ironically, these qualities are found in the US and western Europe (and more and more in post-Sovjet eastern Europe). I mean, there are a bunch of other ideals that the Sovjet Union did achieve, such as equality, social coherence, zero unemployment etc. etc. (even at devestating costs, some, including me, would argue) - so why would you pick those ideals of the west to measure?
I think we're discussing putting Google ads on Wikipedia pages, not selling the whole thing to Google.
And Google Ads hardly gives Google control over your servers.
If I paid for first-class, I'd much prefer to be seated at the very last. I don't want 25 rows of common people walking past me, if I could be drinking another glass of champagne in the lounge.
Well, yes, but the limitations of bubblesort is tied to the assumption that there's only thread working on the problem - in the boarding queue you have n threads, for a problemsize of n, which eliminates the square execution time of bubblesort - the boarding queue bubblesort will execute in O(n), which is pretty close to optimal, given the overhead of explaining a more complicated algorithm, which has the limiting factor of single-threaded (the announcer) execution.
Assuming Germany (80mln people) is all urban (it's not) it would take (80mln/40k) 2.000 dedicated mappers, who has to be evenly spread geographically.
I'll remain pessimistic for a while still, sorry.
It looks like the TATU girls (russian pop, one red-head, one black-haired - and definitely hitting some lesbian notes in their videos and CD covers), although I can't find a cover that looks like that - maybe it's for the musicplayer, displaying the cover of the currently playing song.
I'm sure it's just pointing out the difference scale, and the fact that CPG knew he would ruin these people for life and so on - but it should be pointed out that in a free society, a firm's liability scales with the offence, not it's financial capability.
Good for you. Can we discuss something I've said, rather what you wanted to hear?
Yes. But would you care to show me any that's lasted for very long that doens't believe in some sort of deity?
What I find humorous is that you talk about feelings and compassion in a reply in which you lead by calling me an asshole, while you obviously didn't care to read what I wrote. If that's your idea of compassion, I'd recommend you'd get some dictionary help right away.
Just so you don't have to go back and read it, my statement was that if there is no purpose for up being here, why do we refrain from mentioned raping and murdering. Which led me to conclude that there must be such a purpose (I assumed that intelligent people could deduce that). This was in reply to a guy who asked why there had to be a "why" next to the "how". Which again has nothing to do with me or anyone else belonging to Christianity or any other religion.
But, hey, I wrote that I consider myself a Christian, so I must five minutes away from blowing something up, that's obvious.
My post was not so much about faith in God - but about whether or not there is a "why" as the OP asked. Your statement implies a basics premise - that survival is worth pursuing (if we don't feel we have a purpose in the world, beyond securing the survival of others, why bother?). I agree with you completely that furthering society is necessary, and that is my point to the OP: it's a *why*.
Then I went on to investigate where that purpose comes from - you call it the organism of earth, I call it religion. Both have to do with what (someone thinks) is best for humanity at large. And I don't think we disagree all that much, given how I don't believe in a metaphysical god implies that I don't think a such can write books.
The interpretation of the Bible does, by the way, change when proved non-beneficial. It has done so several times in history - but that's a discussion for another thread.
If there is no why, then we are here for no reason at all. And if we are here for no reason at all, why behave nicely? Why do you think raping and murder is wrong (assuming you do)?
If we are here for no reason at all, what is the justification that I can't just kill left and right, for the hell of it - other then being killed myself, which, given there is no purpose, doesn't matter? Why do I care about raising my children right, and treating others with respect?
If there is an abstract, permanent higher power that we're all ultimately answering to, then it makes sense to follow certain rules, the ones we call morality and ethics. Believing in a god is not prerequisite to behaving nicely, but recognizing the huge impact religion have had on the formation of modern day society is important - and I don't think discrediting everything religion, past and present, with a wave of the hand (which is what many atheists seem to do) is a very sensible thing to do.
As GP said, it's a philosophical question. Because if you believe we are here for no reason at all, but still care about poor people, drug abuse, the environment and war in remote countries, then you are acting extremely irrationally.
I don't believe in a metaphysical god that can intervene, but I do believe in Christian values and morality, and act irrationally according to those, and that makes me a Christian, in my logic.
Sure, for significatly low N's, it might end up using a little more power, but I'm sure they did the math.
The problem is that carbon credits suggests that carbon pollution is a resource, that we have n units of carbon pollution, and we should make the most of them - but what we really want it to limit carbon pollution as much as possible. Carbon credits is the wrong solution to the right problem - it just moves the pollution, it doesn't eliminate it.
When enough companies turn green, and there is sure a trend in that direction (granted, also because of carbon credits), they all want to sell thier credits. When supply exceeds demand, price will drop - which means that the incentive to pollute goes up (assuming that operating a low-emission version of a given business is more expensive than running the old, high-emission version). Consider this scenario: Caddillac buys enough carbon credit cheap enough that they can sell a zero-emission Escalade, simply by stuffing enough carbon credits in the trunk? Net win: 0.
The market economy right solution to carbon pollution, is to consider it an externality. Simply impose a tax on carbon emissions - probably a few cents per. kg carbon. This will provide a direct incentive to lower emissions, that doesn't become smaller as technology advances.
If you think advertising is "being used against you", get your ass off Googles free (as in beer) offerings. Luckily many others consider it a very nice idea that companies will pay us (in services) for our attention.
But your point isn't that advertising bothers YOU, because it doesn't, because you're ever-so-smart and can filter it out. It's the unwashes masses that can't decide for themselves, and you've taken it upon you to make sure they won't get to make that decision.
God I hate "consumer protection". Well, I don't, I hate all the idiots that want to limit my freedom in the name of "protecting" me.