I'm not going to bother going deeply into the fact that modern dictionaries even have definitions of "regulate" that define the word as "to adjust so as to make operate accurately." By this definition, one could say that "well regulated" means "well tuned."
However, one cannot determine the intention of the words in the Constitution by looking at a modern dictionary; one must look at how the word was used at the time the Constitution was written. Thus, if one looks at instances of the word around the end of the 18th century, as in the Oxford English Dictionary, one can see that the word does in fact, have a rough meaning of "well tuned." A sense of "government regulation" was minor, especially in the context of a group of people that just overthrew the last government because it was regulating too much. Even in a sense of "regulation", based on the opinions of the Founders and their contemporaries, its safe to say that in such a sense "well regulated" might mean "restricted" or "constrained" from being a danger of a standing army or somesuch.
If you look into other contemporary writings, even ones directly discussing the amendment, you will find that "well regulated" could also reasonably have a meaning of "well armed".
Electronic voting could be prevented at the national level as something that denies my rights as a citizen, etc. so that it would be allowed to be used anywhere in the country.
As the Oxford English Dictionary says, arms are firearms, for which gunpowder is used such as guns and pistols, as opposed to swords, spears, or bows, and small arms, those which don't require carriages, as opposed to artillery. Arms usually refers to more personal weapons. At least, a nuclear bomb is so different from typical arms, or even devices that some would have fall under the category of "arms" such as helicopters or RPGs, that it can be safely excluded from most consideration.
A nuclear bomb kills almost indiscriminately any person in a region; most decidedly, this is not a personal weapon. Even an RPG can be aimed and restricted in its impact on non-targets. Any use of a nuclear bomb, even accidental or careless, is much more damaging than any use of a normal arm.
A nuclear bomb leaves radioactive waste and destroys the environment as wind spreads its residue. Nuclear bombs have a much more far-reaching effect than "arms". It can be truly said that a nuclear bomb, more than any arm, damages the surrounding area and surrounding persons more than the target.
For practical reasons regarding prohibition, prohibiting nuclear bombs does not appear to have the same dangers as prohibiting many other things. There is much less quantity of demand for nuclear weapons, and removing them from the population (but not criminals as is the case with arms, as they will still be created and sold on the black market, just like every other thing for which their is prohibited possession), is not as dangerous.
I believe he was referring to the Condorcet voting method, which is a method which allows voters to rank candidates in order to more accurately indicate their preferences, and then calculates the winning candidate (pairwise calculation for each possible pair of candidates) in a manner that is not manipulatable by the voter. That Debian developers vote online is not particularly noteworthy.
Depending on what you're doing, check out the "testing" and "unstable" branches of Debian. They have much newer software packages, but are not in a stable release. Many regard these as more stable than, for instance, a Red Hat "stable" release.
People are overdosing whether certain drugs are legal or not. The illegality, however, increases the physical danger associated with certain drugs, and has the added harm of putting hundreds of thousands of people under the duress of the legal system and its consequences.
Fringe buggy cases are accommodated in the installer, just like there has been no GUI in the installer so that it will install on the most hardware. Using an extraneous addon like a GUI is unnecessary when one isn't using a GUI in a setup. This isn't about eliminating GUI's completely, or eliminating distributions. There's just a difference between the installer and other purposes. The new debian-installer should provide for more options like hardware autodetection due to its modular nature.
As for the Debian installer, the reason that a new installer is being written is largely because of a cludgy backend of the old "boot-floppies" installer that required significant modifications every release for small changes. The frontend of the old installer was not particularly bad. The added benefit of the new installer is that it should allow for adding options like hardware autodetection, GUI installation due to easier extensibility and more modularity. I don't know what's wrong with Anaconda... If it is flexible and provides power, and runs on many cases of nearly a dozen different hardware architectures, then it's probably fine. I suspect that it doesn't provide the benefits of the straight-up rewrite, flexibility, modularity of the new debian-installer, however.
apt-get was not being confused with dpkg. apt-get is very effective at upgrading and installing packages smoothly. Largely, this is because of the quality of the packages. The entire distribution can be upgraded, from one release to the next, using this tool. As I understand it, this is still not possible with other apt-get-related tools. A daemon is totally unnecessary and wasteful for automatic updates anyway.
As for your other points, they are generally valid but reflect the intended purpose of the installer.
1. I don't know about streamlining. Certainly a bona fide UI developer could look at it and make improvements.
2. Hardware autodetection has a history of a couple of problems: a) it can cause a small or obscure subset of hardware to break, Debian tries to support as much as possible properly in the installer, or at the very least not cause a hard crash; b) detecting the wrong thing and using it is not desirable. Ultimately, you don't have to do much about hardware in the installer. Unless you are doing a network installation and need to specify a kernel module for your network card, there is no hardware that needs to be specified during installation, it is done automatically by the kernel with modules. I am, however, making a distinction between the installation system proper, and the configuration of individual packages such as XFree86, which could use the option of further hardware detection capability.
3. Setting the debconf priority higher will reduce the number of questions packages ask you.
4. This message is regarding the new debian-installer, which has not before been used in a release. The installer is currently still not in a release-quality state, but this message is from July and the new debian-installer was much less developed then. The problems listed in this message were not problems with the installer of any Debian release, and they will (hopefully;) not be problems of any future release.
debconf is automatically invoked when one installs a package. Package installation is not tricky.
Otherwise, debconf can be invoked with a simple command: dpkg-reconfigure:which is a matter of just knowing the command, but is not any sort of trickiness.
What exactly was horrible about the Debian installer? I've never had a problem with it. As for flexibility, the Debian installer allows nearly infinite flexibility: you can use the command-line while running the installation process. Clearly, this is not easy flexibility, but it certainly is a great deal of flexibility.
What total automation of RPM are you referring to? If you want automation in Debian, you can set a cronjob to run apt-get update && apt-get upgrade daily, and the system will be upgraded appropriately. Individual package installation is very automated as well.
That's not really true. It was a compromise when the constitution was written, but it can be amended without a need for making an entirely new constitution.
You don't have to upgrade the kernel if you upgrade the distribution, and even if you did you wouldn't be required to reboot. All the software packages are upgraded in place while the system is running. A kernel upgrade isn't necessarily part of the distribution upgrade process.
Shouldn't you choose the party that will most conform the government to justice, rather than one that will help you out in your own self-interest? If you base your decision on what party will influence your life beneficially, a party could still have policies that are unjust, unconstitional, and even harmful to other members of society who have different interests from you? Thus, it seems that basing your decision on which party will influence your life beneficially is merely selfishness. Instead, you should support whichever candidate will support just government action.
What's needed for programming isn't language skills but rather logical and visuo-spatial thinking processes. Programming languages are different enough from natural languages anyway that the special "language skills" you attribute to women probably aren't even relevant. Computer programming is primarily dealing with procedures (as in logic, mathematics, algorithms, etc.) and structures (as in entities, objects, pieces). Even if, generally, women are indeed more capable with the "language skills" you're referring to, if women are at all deficient in logical thinking processes or visuo-spatial/object relationships, then the language skills are moot.
It's a good thing we have a representative and federalist system with three branches on both the national and state levels, various checks and balances between it all, and overall limits to the power of each government.
If there are two slots, one 3.5" and the other 5.25", and you have a 3.5" disk, the slot that it logically goes in is the 3.5" slot. It would be one thing if there was only a 5.25" slot and the person was asking if he could put the 3.5" disk in the 5.25" slot, but that's not the case. There are two options, one is clearly designed for the 3.5" disk. If you're supposed to put the 3.5" disk in the 5.25" slot instead, what the hell would be the point of the 3.5" slot? There is one other case though: that both slots can properly fit the 3.5" disk, but in that case why even bother asking? A lot of these things are matters of intelligence, not knowledge. A lack of knowledge is always understandable when you're dealing with someone in the computer world, but it's a whole other thing when someone is clearly not applying any sort of intelligent thought to what they are doing.
He's not really constructing an argument. He's flipping the scientist's argument around to show (to the scientists) the invalidity of deciding whether to use something (Linux or science) based on whether it's mainstream.
Why would you feel bad for a corporation? It's not a person, who gives a shit? I certainly hope you don't mean you feel bad for the executives that have gotten millions of dollars from artists.
Right, it's exactly the same unit as has already been used in the computer world, so why change it? The only practical confusion resulting from using "gigabyte", etc. to mean base 2 is due to the hard drive manufacturers using base 10 in a context when base 2 should be used. Any time you see the word "gigabyte" it means 1024 megabytes. Transmission speeds (which don't adhere to base 2) are in "gigabits" anyway, and if you're doing a simple conversion between the two, transmission speeds are often so unstable, that the margin of error by converting from bytes to bits but not from base 2 to base 10 is insignificant in terms of how accurate the calculation is.
This is a language, not some ISO standard where unused, hackneyed words that sound stupid are afforded any validity. The regular prefixes have always been base 2 when in the context of memory, and while "gibibyte" may merely look acceptably funky when typed, I'm never going to say such an ill-conceived word.
It's a language, not some ISO standard where unused, hackneyed words that sound stupid have any validity. The regular prefixes have always been base 2 when in the context of memory, and while "gibibyte" may merely look acceptably funky when typed, I'm never going to say such an ill-conceived word.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll be sure to remember that when the police are tracing my corpse.
I'm sure I'll be happy the shooter may or may not (not as likely as you might think) have been put in jail when I'm dead.
I'm not going to bother going deeply into the fact that modern dictionaries even have definitions of "regulate" that define the word as "to adjust so as to make operate accurately." By this definition, one could say that "well regulated" means "well tuned."
However, one cannot determine the intention of the words in the Constitution by looking at a modern dictionary; one must look at how the word was used at the time the Constitution was written. Thus, if one looks at instances of the word around the end of the 18th century, as in the Oxford English Dictionary, one can see that the word does in fact, have a rough meaning of "well tuned." A sense of "government regulation" was minor, especially in the context of a group of people that just overthrew the last government because it was regulating too much. Even in a sense of "regulation", based on the opinions of the Founders and their contemporaries, its safe to say that in such a sense "well regulated" might mean "restricted" or "constrained" from being a danger of a standing army or somesuch.
If you look into other contemporary writings, even ones directly discussing the amendment, you will find that "well regulated" could also reasonably have a meaning of "well armed".
Electronic voting could be prevented at the national level as something that denies my rights as a citizen, etc. so that it would be allowed to be used anywhere in the country.
As the Oxford English Dictionary says, arms are firearms, for which gunpowder is used such as guns and pistols, as opposed to swords, spears, or bows, and small arms, those which don't require carriages, as opposed to artillery. Arms usually refers to more personal weapons. At least, a nuclear bomb is so different from typical arms, or even devices that some would have fall under the category of "arms" such as helicopters or RPGs, that it can be safely excluded from most consideration.
A nuclear bomb kills almost indiscriminately any person in a region; most decidedly, this is not a personal weapon. Even an RPG can be aimed and restricted in its impact on non-targets. Any use of a nuclear bomb, even accidental or careless, is much more damaging than any use of a normal arm.
A nuclear bomb leaves radioactive waste and destroys the environment as wind spreads its residue. Nuclear bombs have a much more far-reaching effect than "arms". It can be truly said that a nuclear bomb, more than any arm, damages the surrounding area and surrounding persons more than the target.
For practical reasons regarding prohibition, prohibiting nuclear bombs does not appear to have the same dangers as prohibiting many other things. There is much less quantity of demand for nuclear weapons, and removing them from the population (but not criminals as is the case with arms, as they will still be created and sold on the black market, just like every other thing for which their is prohibited possession), is not as dangerous.
I believe he was referring to the Condorcet voting method, which is a method which allows voters to rank candidates in order to more accurately indicate their preferences, and then calculates the winning candidate (pairwise calculation for each possible pair of candidates) in a manner that is not manipulatable by the voter. That Debian developers vote online is not particularly noteworthy.
Depending on what you're doing, check out the "testing" and "unstable" branches of Debian. They have much newer software packages, but are not in a stable release. Many regard these as more stable than, for instance, a Red Hat "stable" release.
People are overdosing whether certain drugs are legal or not. The illegality, however, increases the physical danger associated with certain drugs, and has the added harm of putting hundreds of thousands of people under the duress of the legal system and its consequences.
Fringe buggy cases are accommodated in the installer, just like there has been no GUI in the installer so that it will install on the most hardware. Using an extraneous addon like a GUI is unnecessary when one isn't using a GUI in a setup. This isn't about eliminating GUI's completely, or eliminating distributions. There's just a difference between the installer and other purposes. The new debian-installer should provide for more options like hardware autodetection due to its modular nature.
As for the Debian installer, the reason that a new installer is being written is largely because of a cludgy backend of the old "boot-floppies" installer that required significant modifications every release for small changes. The frontend of the old installer was not particularly bad. The added benefit of the new installer is that it should allow for adding options like hardware autodetection, GUI installation due to easier extensibility and more modularity. I don't know what's wrong with Anaconda... If it is flexible and provides power, and runs on many cases of nearly a dozen different hardware architectures, then it's probably fine. I suspect that it doesn't provide the benefits of the straight-up rewrite, flexibility, modularity of the new debian-installer, however.
apt-get was not being confused with dpkg. apt-get is very effective at upgrading and installing packages smoothly. Largely, this is because of the quality of the packages. The entire distribution can be upgraded, from one release to the next, using this tool. As I understand it, this is still not possible with other apt-get-related tools. A daemon is totally unnecessary and wasteful for automatic updates anyway.
;) not be problems of any future release.
As for your other points, they are generally valid but reflect the intended purpose of the installer.
1. I don't know about streamlining. Certainly a bona fide UI developer could look at it and make improvements.
2. Hardware autodetection has a history of a couple of problems: a) it can cause a small or obscure subset of hardware to break, Debian tries to support as much as possible properly in the installer, or at the very least not cause a hard crash; b) detecting the wrong thing and using it is not desirable. Ultimately, you don't have to do much about hardware in the installer. Unless you are doing a network installation and need to specify a kernel module for your network card, there is no hardware that needs to be specified during installation, it is done automatically by the kernel with modules. I am, however, making a distinction between the installation system proper, and the configuration of individual packages such as XFree86, which could use the option of further hardware detection capability.
3. Setting the debconf priority higher will reduce the number of questions packages ask you.
4. This message is regarding the new debian-installer, which has not before been used in a release. The installer is currently still not in a release-quality state, but this message is from July and the new debian-installer was much less developed then. The problems listed in this message were not problems with the installer of any Debian release, and they will (hopefully
debconf is automatically invoked when one installs a package. Package installation is not tricky.
:which is a matter of just knowing the command, but is not any sort of trickiness.
Otherwise, debconf can be invoked with a simple command: dpkg-reconfigure
What exactly was horrible about the Debian installer? I've never had a problem with it. As for flexibility, the Debian installer allows nearly infinite flexibility: you can use the command-line while running the installation process. Clearly, this is not easy flexibility, but it certainly is a great deal of flexibility.
What total automation of RPM are you referring to? If you want automation in Debian, you can set a cronjob to run apt-get update && apt-get upgrade daily, and the system will be upgraded appropriately. Individual package installation is very automated as well.
You mean it wastes labor resources that could be better used for other things?
That's not really true. It was a compromise when the constitution was written, but it can be amended without a need for making an entirely new constitution.
You don't have to upgrade the kernel if you upgrade the distribution, and even if you did you wouldn't be required to reboot. All the software packages are upgraded in place while the system is running. A kernel upgrade isn't necessarily part of the distribution upgrade process.
Shouldn't you choose the party that will most conform the government to justice, rather than one that will help you out in your own self-interest? If you base your decision on what party will influence your life beneficially, a party could still have policies that are unjust, unconstitional, and even harmful to other members of society who have different interests from you? Thus, it seems that basing your decision on which party will influence your life beneficially is merely selfishness. Instead, you should support whichever candidate will support just government action.
What's needed for programming isn't language skills but rather logical and visuo-spatial thinking processes. Programming languages are different enough from natural languages anyway that the special "language skills" you attribute to women probably aren't even relevant. Computer programming is primarily dealing with procedures (as in logic, mathematics, algorithms, etc.) and structures (as in entities, objects, pieces). Even if, generally, women are indeed more capable with the "language skills" you're referring to, if women are at all deficient in logical thinking processes or visuo-spatial/object relationships, then the language skills are moot.
It's a good thing we have a representative and federalist system with three branches on both the national and state levels, various checks and balances between it all, and overall limits to the power of each government.
Only idiots quote themselves?
Stealing takes place when the other party loses the possession of what it is that is being "stolen". Copyright infringement is not stealing.
If there are two slots, one 3.5" and the other 5.25", and you have a 3.5" disk, the slot that it logically goes in is the 3.5" slot. It would be one thing if there was only a 5.25" slot and the person was asking if he could put the 3.5" disk in the 5.25" slot, but that's not the case. There are two options, one is clearly designed for the 3.5" disk. If you're supposed to put the 3.5" disk in the 5.25" slot instead, what the hell would be the point of the 3.5" slot? There is one other case though: that both slots can properly fit the 3.5" disk, but in that case why even bother asking? A lot of these things are matters of intelligence, not knowledge. A lack of knowledge is always understandable when you're dealing with someone in the computer world, but it's a whole other thing when someone is clearly not applying any sort of intelligent thought to what they are doing.
He's not really constructing an argument. He's flipping the scientist's argument around to show (to the scientists) the invalidity of deciding whether to use something (Linux or science) based on whether it's mainstream.
Why would you feel bad for a corporation? It's not a person, who gives a shit? I certainly hope you don't mean you feel bad for the executives that have gotten millions of dollars from artists.
Right, it's exactly the same unit as has already been used in the computer world, so why change it? The only practical confusion resulting from using "gigabyte", etc. to mean base 2 is due to the hard drive manufacturers using base 10 in a context when base 2 should be used. Any time you see the word "gigabyte" it means 1024 megabytes. Transmission speeds (which don't adhere to base 2) are in "gigabits" anyway, and if you're doing a simple conversion between the two, transmission speeds are often so unstable, that the margin of error by converting from bytes to bits but not from base 2 to base 10 is insignificant in terms of how accurate the calculation is.
This is a language, not some ISO standard where unused, hackneyed words that sound stupid are afforded any validity. The regular prefixes have always been base 2 when in the context of memory, and while "gibibyte" may merely look acceptably funky when typed, I'm never going to say such an ill-conceived word.
It's a language, not some ISO standard where unused, hackneyed words that sound stupid have any validity. The regular prefixes have always been base 2 when in the context of memory, and while "gibibyte" may merely look acceptably funky when typed, I'm never going to say such an ill-conceived word.