"There is no dark side of the moon really...as a matter of fact, it's all dark from time to time."
--pink floyd, _dark_side_of_the_moon_
gotta love parametric equalizers - just don't let your kids choke back a marley before playing with them. the results are...irritating, i've been told, enough to put you off your favourite albums.
calling it floyd station would be hilarious on two counts. recall where the monolith was found in clarke's _2001_, and who got called out to see it...
the guy has been at it a long time, and has come up with some interesting approaches from both a technical and a social perspective. the 25 MB video file inside sears had me both laughing on the floor and scared shitless. "Call security" takes on a whole new meaning...
taking action isn't difficult, but the powers that be want you to think so.
huh? i don't follow your argument.
macaffee wishes to foist on the consumers a product that, by design, _will_not_ do what it is supposed to do - stop programs that you don't want to have on your computer from being on your computer. they want to (a) do this as a matter of policy, and (b) be seen to have this policy.
at which point, any other competing product picked at random has a better chance of being superior. spending time looking for the one that actually is better ( because some truly lame programs exist) is now time not wasted.
happy happy joy joy shopping time.
virus is, in latin, a mass noun - similar to how 'air' is considered a colective noun in english. you do not breath 'an air', you breathe 'air' (although you can breathe 'an air _molecule_' if you're unfortunate enogh to find yourself in a very very very low pressure zone). such words, in latin, do not get the usual plural suffix transformation us -> -ii, because for all practical purposes they are already plural.
a radius is a single thing - either a straight line that joins the centre of a circle to any point on the circle's perimeter, or the measured length of such a line.
so, for latin,
radius -> radii
virus -> virus
english speaking programmers borrowed a word (aptly, i suppose) originally intended as a mass noun to identify a non-mass noun. it seems safe to say that the 'rules' of latin don't apply. use the most convenient rules - i mean, if i invent a new word to identify something (i.e. i went downtown to buy a florkus) people would justly call me pretentious if i said i was going downtown to get ten florkii. and they might question the wisdom of buying ten florkuses when RAM is so cheap these days.
ya, so you're in a war. does that mean that innocent civilians are not allowed to indulge in the things that they believe interest them? if so, then the 'terrorists' have already won 99.99999% of the war.
{ rant Warning }
unprecedented? get a grip. not to belittle the tragedy that americans experienced, but a comparison seems in order...
the terrorists had mysterious (though likely evil) motives to do what they chose to do. possibly it was based on some tweaked religious or political dogma. i'm hesitant to speculate more explicitly than that. however, i'm sure they had a clear idea of what the aftermath of their choices would be.
warren anderson had a plain, easy to understand motive to do what he chose to do (profit margin / shareholder value). he knew there were problems at bhopal, and what the possible consequences would be of ignoring them.
the only major difference _from_the_point_of_view_of_the_innocent_civilian_ is in one case, perpetrators synchronized watches, in the other, they synchronized daybooks. dead is dead, and it's no consolation to either the dead or the survivors what the perpetrators motives were.
{ / rant }
warren anderson jumped bail in india, but efforts at extradition from the u.s. have yet to get anywhere.
note that india did _not_ come out with guns blazing, but instead threw a whole lot of the $470M that union carbide handed over at the health care services in the area. almost brought the region up to W.H.O. standards. in all fairness, the effectiveness of the cash influx was questionable - i mean, really, who decided to put the new hospital 6 miles away? why the refusal to subsidize low-emission cooking stoves for the survivors with severe breathing problems? etc.
sorry if that brings down your day, it just seems like a case of short memory or selective long term memory.
Here's a newsflash for you: what happened on September 11 was not an attack on America. It was an attack on civilization. just a nitpick... _false_ to perform an attack on civilization requires, um, how exactly would you do that? it's a state of mind, not a thing, and is better performed with words than with loonie pilots. the best attack on ideas about happiness or civilization is living their contradiction in a happy/civil manner.
ANALOGY: if i think worship involves twirling spoons around my ear, and someone breaks in and melts down all my silverware because their idea of worship involves spoons never going near hearing organs, they've attacked my cutlery, not my religion. they may have attacked my possessions _because_ of my beliefs, but they are not attacking my beliefs.
my faith may be shaken, or not, but if i said they were attacking my (desired) state of mind, i would be wrong and i deserve an F on the pop quiz tomorrow. this doesn't change if, before/during/after the break-in, they told me it was being done because they were fans of smelting or because they were devout non-aural-spoonists. i'd still be mistaken, but i'd have the label of heretic within the Church of Non Per Ora Manual.
if, however, they point out that the omniscient concavity of consumption (amen) would clearly never desire us to defile our pinnae with things that had once been in contact with germ-riddled mouths, for sterling's sake, well, that counts as an attack on my religion/worship/civilization. END ANALOGY (sleep dep makes me peculiar. sorry.)
yes, the evidence exists; it is strong; and in any event, bin Laden's outrageous litany of past crimes make our response long overdue.
if his past litany of crimes has been ignored until now, well, exactly. this is so way out there that i'm not sure how it can be reasoned with. hmm, what's the word i'm looking for? dictionary, (webster's revised 1913, DICT server), don't fail me now... pretext.
not to say osama laden doesn't deserve a good whuppn, but at least be clear on the why part. the brits clearly stated right at the top of http://www.pm.gov.uk/text/evidence.htm that they're not dealing with evidence... i mean, come on, 5k+ people DIED, and what they say they want is to keep their current spy operatives in deep cover? why, i ask myself, is that? either (a) they've got some wicked-ass spies in deep cover that could hit the enter key for me if i missed it, and i wouldn't notice my error, (b) they have a hella, hella big bunch of spies all in some hella deep cover, (c) there's no evidence or (d) it is weak evidence.
(a) farfetched. (b) improbable. (c) unlikely. (d) basing 'your' response on weak evidence is dumb. even if a prompt response is being raved for. i don't see blair (or bush's advisors) being that shortsighted. check your dictionary. btw, sell tulip futures short next week. trust me, i can't tell you why just now.
I'd suggest you learn to deal with it, because that's the way the world's going to work from now on. nitpick...no, not a nitpick.
FALSE. that's the way the world works _at_the_moment_. it's also the way the world will work until someone with a larger dose of political clout (and hopefully some sense) figures that the world might work better differently. let's see, keanu reeves? no, too cute to be taken seriously. and i've heard dogstar. natasia kinski? hmmm, not so high on the cute scale, intelligent, but i'd be wary of any dealings with her, i'd constantly be asking myself if i'm conceding some issue because i've always wanted to...oh sorry talking out loud.
the long and short of it is that some influential politician or public figure will eventually step up to the plate to try and change things. that's been going on for millenia, the will to influence others has never been absent from humanity. heck, it might even be a change for the better. still, i'm going to exhale now.
sorry about posting while dopey from sleep dep. why did i ever become a post-secondary student?
slashdot has performed...
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...admirably.
thank you, rob & crew.
upon hearing rumour of what happened, and not being able to access any of my bookmarked news sites, take a wild guess what url i typed in.
up it came, immediately, with usable information.
good? yes. you've done well. if you still need to break down, go ahead. i find no fault in tears.
tragedy is not a strong enough word for the recent calamity. i (a canadian, if it matters) cried also.
yes, there is, http://dogpile.com/ . i use it when i'm trying to find out about something where i'm not certain which search engine will be most suitable. you can customize the order in which the engines' results are displayed. google (my fave) is not included, wonder why?
i've caught a grem in my sig - terror is imminent!
is that i have not been able to figure out if he actually sold or made available any of this software _while in usa_.
if so, well, little sympathy. when in rome...
if not, i'm planning on _never_ visiting again.
i am pentium of borg. division is futile. mathematics is irrelevant. you will be approximated.
Slashdot Mirror
a more complete snippet:
"There is no dark side of the moon really...as a matter of fact, it's all dark from time to time."
--pink floyd, _dark_side_of_the_moon_
gotta love parametric equalizers - just don't let your kids choke back a marley before playing with them. the results are...irritating, i've been told, enough to put you off your favourite albums.
calling it floyd station would be hilarious on two counts. recall where the monolith was found in clarke's _2001_, and who got called out to see it...
reminds me of this site, well worth wandering around in.
sousveillance
the guy has been at it a long time, and has come up with some interesting approaches from both a technical and a social perspective. the 25 MB video file inside sears had me both laughing on the floor and scared shitless. "Call security" takes on a whole new meaning...
taking action isn't difficult, but the powers that be want you to think so.
hope that helps.
huh? i don't follow your argument.
macaffee wishes to foist on the consumers a product that, by design, _will_not_ do what it is supposed to do - stop programs that you don't want to have on your computer from being on your computer. they want to (a) do this as a matter of policy, and (b) be seen to have this policy.
at which point, any other competing product picked at random has a better chance of being superior. spending time looking for the one that actually is better ( because some truly lame programs exist) is now time not wasted.
happy happy joy joy shopping time.
.
offtopic troll tending.
virus is, in latin, a mass noun - similar to how 'air' is considered a colective noun in english. you do not breath 'an air', you breathe 'air' (although you can breathe 'an air _molecule_' if you're unfortunate enogh to find yourself in a very very very low pressure zone). such words, in latin, do not get the usual plural suffix transformation us -> -ii, because for all practical purposes they are already plural.
a radius is a single thing - either a straight line that joins the centre of a circle to any point on the circle's perimeter, or the measured length of such a line.
so, for latin,
radius -> radii
virus -> virus
english speaking programmers borrowed a word (aptly, i suppose) originally intended as a mass noun to identify a non-mass noun. it seems safe to say that the 'rules' of latin don't apply. use the most convenient rules - i mean, if i invent a new word to identify something (i.e. i went downtown to buy a florkus) people would justly call me pretentious if i said i was going downtown to get ten florkii. and they might question the wisdom of buying ten florkuses when RAM is so cheap these days.
so, for english,
virus -> viruses
air -> air
i am not a linguist. pedantry for everyone!
ya, so you're in a war. does that mean that innocent civilians are not allowed to indulge in the things that they believe interest them? if so, then the 'terrorists' have already won 99.99999% of the war.
{ rant Warning }
unprecedented? get a grip. not to belittle the tragedy that americans experienced, but a comparison seems in order...
{ rant }
bhopal. 16,000+ innocent civilians died, iirc.
the terrorists had mysterious (though likely evil) motives to do what they chose to do. possibly it was based on some tweaked religious or political dogma. i'm hesitant to speculate more explicitly than that. however, i'm sure they had a clear idea of what the aftermath of their choices would be.
warren anderson had a plain, easy to understand motive to do what he chose to do (profit margin / shareholder value). he knew there were problems at bhopal, and what the possible consequences would be of ignoring them.
the only major difference _from_the_point_of_view_of_the_innocent_civilian_ is in one case, perpetrators synchronized watches, in the other, they synchronized daybooks. dead is dead, and it's no consolation to either the dead or the survivors what the perpetrators motives were.
{ / rant }
warren anderson jumped bail in india, but efforts at extradition from the u.s. have yet to get anywhere.
note that india did _not_ come out with guns blazing, but instead threw a whole lot of the $470M that union carbide handed over at the health care services in the area. almost brought the region up to W.H.O. standards. in all fairness, the effectiveness of the cash influx was questionable - i mean, really, who decided to put the new hospital 6 miles away? why the refusal to subsidize low-emission cooking stoves for the survivors with severe breathing problems? etc.
sorry if that brings down your day, it just seems like a case of short memory or selective long term memory.
peace,
freaq
Here's a newsflash for you: what happened on September 11 was not an attack on America. It was an attack on civilization.
just a nitpick... _false_ to perform an attack on civilization requires, um, how exactly would you do that? it's a state of mind, not a thing, and is better performed with words than with loonie pilots. the best attack on ideas about happiness or civilization is living their contradiction in a happy/civil manner.
ANALOGY: if i think worship involves twirling spoons around my ear, and someone breaks in and melts down all my silverware because their idea of worship involves spoons never going near hearing organs, they've attacked my cutlery, not my religion. they may have attacked my possessions _because_ of my beliefs, but they are not attacking my beliefs.
my faith may be shaken, or not, but if i said they were attacking my (desired) state of mind, i would be wrong and i deserve an F on the pop quiz tomorrow. this doesn't change if, before/during/after the break-in, they told me it was being done because they were fans of smelting or because they were devout non-aural-spoonists. i'd still be mistaken, but i'd have the label of heretic within the Church of Non Per Ora Manual.
if, however, they point out that the omniscient concavity of consumption (amen) would clearly never desire us to defile our pinnae with things that had once been in contact with germ-riddled mouths, for sterling's sake, well, that counts as an attack on my religion/worship/civilization. END ANALOGY (sleep dep makes me peculiar. sorry.)
yes, the evidence exists; it is strong; and in any event, bin Laden's outrageous litany of past crimes make our response long overdue.
if his past litany of crimes has been ignored until now, well, exactly. this is so way out there that i'm not sure how it can be reasoned with. hmm, what's the word i'm looking for? dictionary, (webster's revised 1913, DICT server), don't fail me now... pretext.
not to say osama laden doesn't deserve a good whuppn, but at least be clear on the why part. the brits clearly stated right at the top of http://www.pm.gov.uk/text/evidence.htm that they're not dealing with evidence... i mean, come on, 5k+ people DIED, and what they say they want is to keep their current spy operatives in deep cover? why, i ask myself, is that? either (a) they've got some wicked-ass spies in deep cover that could hit the enter key for me if i missed it, and i wouldn't notice my error, (b) they have a hella, hella big bunch of spies all in some hella deep cover, (c) there's no evidence or (d) it is weak evidence.
(a) farfetched. (b) improbable. (c) unlikely. (d) basing 'your' response on weak evidence is dumb. even if a prompt response is being raved for. i don't see blair (or bush's advisors) being that shortsighted. check your dictionary. btw, sell tulip futures short next week. trust me, i can't tell you why just now.
I'd suggest you learn to deal with it, because that's the way the world's going to work from now on.
nitpick...no, not a nitpick.
FALSE. that's the way the world works _at_the_moment_. it's also the way the world will work until someone with a larger dose of political clout (and hopefully some sense) figures that the world might work better differently. let's see, keanu reeves? no, too cute to be taken seriously. and i've heard dogstar. natasia kinski? hmmm, not so high on the cute scale, intelligent, but i'd be wary of any dealings with her, i'd constantly be asking myself if i'm conceding some issue because i've always wanted to...oh sorry talking out loud.
the long and short of it is that some influential politician or public figure will eventually step up to the plate to try and change things. that's been going on for millenia, the will to influence others has never been absent from humanity. heck, it might even be a change for the better. still, i'm going to exhale now.
sorry about posting while dopey from sleep dep. why did i ever become a post-secondary student?
...admirably.
thank you, rob & crew.
upon hearing rumour of what happened, and not being able to access any of my bookmarked news sites, take a wild guess what url i typed in.
up it came, immediately, with usable information.
good? yes. you've done well. if you still need to break down, go ahead. i find no fault in tears.
tragedy is not a strong enough word for the recent calamity. i (a canadian, if it matters) cried also.
peter
(i sin ø)
e
yes, there is, http://dogpile.com/ . i use it when i'm trying to find out about something where i'm not certain which search engine will be most suitable. you can customize the order in which the engines' results are displayed. google (my fave) is not included, wonder why?
i've caught a grem in my sig - terror is imminent!
is that i have not been able to figure out if he actually sold or made available any of this software _while in usa_.
if so, well, little sympathy. when in rome...
if not, i'm planning on _never_ visiting again.
i am pentium of borg. division is futile. mathematics is irrelevant. you will be approximated.