I think YOU must be using a different GTK than the rest of us. While several years that may have been true, today I use many, many GTK+ (2.6.9) apps on Windows and they all seem FASTER than their native Windows counterparts. OOo 2.0 loads faster than WordPerfect or MS Word ever did. Gaim does everything better. Gimp loads in only a second or two, whereas Photoshop tool much, much longer. Why do you try something less ancient before bitching about it.
Someone needs to retake Constitutional law. While that maybe how the law reads, the good-ole Supreme Court of United States ruled that the ammendments DO, in fact, apply to states. But, you know, that's only case law from the Supreme Court, making it only the most powerful law in the US. They also ruled that public schools cannot touch student's free speech without unless it ciolates a few rules (it can't be obscene to average man (not child), it can't materially and substantially disrupt the learning environment, they can also censor publications that the school publishes but only the speech goes against the interest of the school). As far as malls go, being a public place, additional constraints cannot be applied. Malls can't tell you to shut up (unless you disrupt business). That's just what the SCOTUS said, not that it's important.
Nothing, because your wrong. Lasers may not EMIT heat, but they sure as hell produce it. Ever use a laser pointer continuously for more than a few minutes?
It's also a proven historical fact that countries with more laws have more criminals. The US has more people in jail than any country but Russia and China and also has the most drug laws. Its also a proven historical fact that crime goes up as inequity goes up. The more rich the rich people are compared to the poor, the more crime there is. Compare Mexico to any country in Europe, the rich people in both countries are just as rich as eachother but Mexico's poor are much more poor, and, lo and behold, Mexico has a crapload more crime. Is the cause lawlessness or is it inequity and ridiculous laws?
That's one reason why Windows XP 64 sucks. Strangely, there's has been a great 64-bit native (in fact, significantly faster on 64-bit than on 32-bit) video editor for Linux for years. It's called Cinelera. The most recent version is ridiculously awesome; I'd say it rivals many commercial compositors (a very advanced type of video editor). Older versions were shitty for MPEG, but more recent versions have fixed that up quite a bit.
Yes, they missed the point but so did you. While Thompson's letter may, at a glance, seem to establish credibility and harassment, it does so only through falsehood. Nearly all of the information in Jack Thompson's letter to the bar that was presented as fact is, at best, misleading and, at worst, blatantly false. That's what you and some of the other posters missed. Here are a few of the, shall I say, mistruths (read: lies):
The parent company [to ThinkGeek] is an outfit called Penny Arcade.
Penny Arcade put out a "news story" that was wholly false...
I have written the Police Chief in Seattle and asked that their department investigate this matter......gamer idiot (sorry to be redundant)...
Any Bar complaint coming from these morons arising out of the above incident is baseless and itself constitutes a violation of a specific federal civil rights statute....the folks at Think Geek provided, improperly, Penny Arcade with my email address, which had not been widely circulated...
NB That last sentence fragment contained two untruths.
Anyhow, I don't think that a letter containing numerous ad hominem attacks, gratuitous namecalling, and bald-faced lies could possibly be seen in a favorable light by any BAR. And, if anything, a butt of "Me too!"s would probably serve to accentuate the egregiousness of Thompson's behaviour. Besides, when you a thousand people screaming bloody murder who won't shut up, what you do? Piss them off more by letting Jack Thompson off the hook without a fight or get them to shut up by thoroughly investigating their claims.
It sounds an aweful lot like you know absolutely nothing about leftist politics. Communism is not about government control of the people, it's about giving every member of society the means to live comfortably. Just because Russia screwed it up hardcore says nothing of the theory. Communo-anarchism is about as related to communism as chimpanzees are to bonobos; they come from the same ancestor but are completely different.
The communo-ness of my anarchism is simply the manner in which I would have the anarchist society look. It just shows that I want to place an emphasis on the small communities and envision communal living. Other types of anarchists want much the same thing but emphasize different aspects and want for different types of societies and living arrangements. For example, mutualist anarchists want an economy of sorts complete with banks, but without the "usury", ie no interest, rent nor profit. Most types of socio/communo anarchists want a complete abolishion of money. Unlike statists, we anarchists don't have a problem with these seemingly contradictory views being present in our movement; we understand that no one is right and that we all have different views. Having views even slighlty different from a rightist like Rush usually brings bullshit like ad hominem attacks and other logical falicies that Rush and co. are so fond of using. Rush has been "stumped" many times, but I've never heard him admit it; he usually just attacks his adversary on unrelated grounds.
As far as the law goes, do we really need it? Since when does the law stop people from breaking it? And if there was no law, would you start murdering, raping and pillaging? Why would anyone else? (Not directly related to what you said, but anyone who questions anarchy invariably first argues that without the law we would have a continuous stream of rapes, murders and robberies, much like we have today.)
Maybe that's because all those people are centrists not "far-out liberals". On the politcal spectrum, the Republicans fall very far to the right, damn near monarchists and fascists (by the original definition), with many already there. The Democrats fall on the center, with some slightly to the left. (Just to note, libertarians are a split case on the spectrum. They fall on the extreme right insofar as government issues are concerned and on the extreme left insofar as personal liberty is concerned. "Anarcho-capitalists" are much the same but are not anarchists; they just think they are.)
Maybe if he asked to debate someone who was actually a "far-out liberal" (like a socialist, communist or an anarchist), he'd actually get a yes.
To those of you who think they're on the left, you're probably not. Maybe by American standards, you are, but not by the rest of humanity.
PS - If Rush wants to debate a real leftist, I'd be quite happy to do it. Of course, as a communo-anarchist, I may be too far left for his tastes. Meh, who cares?
So all we have to so is put one of these games on shelves and, BAM!, he's actionable. I own a cybercafe and we definitely sell video games. Case closed. (What a dumbass!)
Of course, speaking of technicalities, it seems to me that he was being serious in his letter, and that letter seemed to be an offer. Before he came out with his retraction, several people accepted his offer. Let me think back to business law, offer, acceptance, consideration, legality, remedy and competancy. Unless he's insane I think we got him. One of those dudes who wrote the game needs to get it packaged, I'll sell it, and we'll sue him!
I do make it sound quite bleak, don't I? I agree with you that a little bit of proactivity toward the environment and lowering energy use would go long way. Hell, I like the gas tax idea, though I think $10 or $20 would be a better target. I think in the end we would still run into the same problem, just later: we are going to run out of oil. Without oil, we can really only support like 1.5B because we only have so much land space. We need that land for food now, but if we are also using it for fuel, we going to be in trouble. Even with those reductions in energy consumption, we are still talking a whole lot of energy per person. That means a whole lot of land.
Another thing about food: What most people don't realize is that most of our food comes from oil (seriously). Modern farming employs oil-based fertilizers that provide enough energy and nutrients to the plants to allow for a calorie density of the resulting food about ten times what it would be using natural farming techniques. This is the so-called "green revolution." This is also why organic food is so ridiculously expensive. The only reason that its even close to affordable is because profit margins are much lower than those of standard commercial products. This is why we're so screwed when we run out of petroleum. Without it, we would have a hard time FEEDING our current population with the land we have. Now try fueling them.
"Well, that's where government needs to step in... when something is necessary but the market doesn't support it in the short-term."
Well, now that's going to be a problem once you realize the overall solution. The problem is that oil, natural gas and coal are virtually free energy. It gives us 30 times the energy we put in to getting it. Everything that replaces it (short of fusion) gives much less. Alcohol, for example, give 1.53J per J used to obtain. Hydrogen takes energy to get, so its, at best, a storage system, and not a good one. Grain actually gives out like 2J/J, so its better than alcohol. The problem is that to provide every one on earth today with thier energy needs through non-fossil fuels would take more land than the entire Earth has. Much more. At today's consumption levels, without fossil fuels, we can only sustain about 750 Million people. If we cut down to more reasonable levels of consumption, we'd be able to get 1.5 Billion, 2 would be a stretch. Now why's this a problem? We have already used half of our oil and we'll be to levels too low to sustain our economies by no later than 2015, probably earlier. Natural gas and coal aren't far behind, but the process of converting to those fuels would push them past the point before the infrastructure was complete, rendering them worthless. Even if we found a large oil deposit (even one as large as all of the oil we have found to date), we would do little but delay the inevitable.
So what's the overall solution? War (over oil), famine, then death. Of 5 billion people (minimum).
Are you serious?!? You use Telnet? For security? Why not a recent OpenSSH? At least then you'll have some semblence of security instead of plain text over whatever untrusted network. (Whoosh. [Let's out sigh] Now that I've caught my breath.) Man, I don't think I've heard anyone say Telnet in quite a while. Almost had a heart attack.
Actually, those two SIMMs were a ridiculously expensive upgrade. I remember going through old invoives for my dad after a fire in 1996 and I saw that he had to pay something like $600 extra for the upgrade from 512kiB to 640kiB. All told, he payed around $5000 for his first computer in 1988 (or so, I was like 4 at the time). He needed the upgrade so he could run his $10000 accounting software (that he still uses, in a fullscreen DOS on a Win98 machine with a Cyrix MX200. Every four years or so, he pays a $5000 upgrade fee. The craziest part is the software, one of two products the company makes, still (released last year) only requires DOS 6.0. Going to Win98 was only because the new Hasp (a hardware-based CD-key equivalent) requires it; he broke the original last year when the 5th pin fell out. If he still had, he'd still be using DOS 6.22. He had Win3.1 but never used it because it sucks.)
Dude, learn to use enter. Make some paragraphs. Maybe add in some structure. Is that the entire article? WTF? Why did you waste our time with that post? Why did I waste my time writing this? Anyway, if you mod the parent down, my post won't be read, so don't bother modding me. I like my karma. And marijuana. And alcohol. Obviously. Heh heh.
Tell me about it. I watch TV quite a bit, but lately its been less. I can only manage to get 2 or 3 hours of TV per day and that's if I try. I find that if I start to read something interesting on the Internet, I can be so sucked in that it eats into my TV time. No big loss though. The funny thing is that I thought I watched MORE TV than average. To find out that 3 hours is light almost makes me sick. The worst part, though, is that most of MY day is taken up. I don't even have time to clean my room, house, car, etc. How can these people function in society. Here's an average day for me:
4 PM : Wake up, take shower, whatnot (I know, PM is correct) 6 PM : Leave for work 6:30 : Get to work. 4 AM : Leave for home. 4:30 : Get there, start laundery, maybe clean, start watching TV. 7:30 : Go to bed.
To make this work, I eat two meals at my job. I have to skip passive entertainment when I need to shop. I don't get how anyone could fit more TV into their schedule without giving something up. I suppose I work quite a bit longer than most, though. And I actually get a full night's (day's) sleep. I think I may need to change things to have a life, now that I look at it. As it stands, whiskey is entirely out of the question. Meh...
That's what video buffers are for. Just keep a big enough buffer to account for shots being made from some obscene distance and you've got yourself covered (like say 2000m). Of course, why worry about the audio? The cideo ought to have you covered. Now lets combine this trajectory tracking and source finding technology with the automatic turret that Slashdot covered a week ago and, viola, you have a soldier killing robot. First person to shoot, the robot kills you. Now let's just keep this out of the governments hands...
First, as someone already noted, there's no such thing as a non-10baseT hub. All 100baseTX and Gigabit switches are switches. Don't worry about Win2k. It's not really important. Watch out on the switch. Don't (repeat: DO FUCKING NOT) cheap out on the switch. Many cheaper switches are really a bridge (2-port switch) connected to a big 10baseT hub. Worthless. Others are really Switches but can only handle so much aggregate bandwidth between ports. In other words, all ports individually can do gigabit or whatever, but altogether they can only handle some lower than expected bandwidth. For example, port1 can talk to port2 at 1000Mbit/s but if port3 talks to port4 at the same time then both conversations may only take place at 500Mbit/s each. Imagine having one of cheapasses as a 20-port with all twenty in use at the same time.
For a 20-port Gigabit worth it's salt expect to pay at least $300. For an 8-port pay at least $125. For cards, you should be able to get away with about $15. Even if you find ISA and have ISA in your Win98 PCs, go with PCI; you'll notice the difference. If you have PCIe available, use it; you'll notice the difference. (Your Win98's won't have it, but new PCs will.) If you don't skimp out and go gigabit, you will mare bandwidth than you can handle. If you're going to skimp out (Don't, you WILL regret it.), you may as well get a 10baseT hub and bulk 10baseT cards. It'll give you the same performance as the cheapass gigabits.
As far as QoS, if you get a decent switch, it'll have it built in. Just read up on it. But with Gigabit, I doubt you'll need it.
If he was talking about streaming to a boatlaod of people then some type of multicast is in order. That will save mega bandwidth. I'm not much of an expert in multicast and I'm not sure what the questioner wants his streams to do but it sounds like he wants to stream to many people on the college network. Multicast will be a must.
Maybe you should stop thinking of yourself as an enlightened intelligent human and realize that you are an animal with certain needs and requirements. Science knows for a fact that a lack of vitamins and minerals will cause specific physiological and psychological disorders. As will too much of certain vitamins and minerals. Why, then, is it so unbeleivable that chemicals artificially made in a lab would also cause these disorders? Especially when you consume pounds a week. Look at Mexico. Very few people use any artificial sweeteners. HFCS is practically illegal (giant taxes make it cost prohibitive). Almost noone in Mexico has depression. Very few are fat. Coincidence? I doubt it. (Even the fat thing. Mexicans consume around 3500 calories per day. We consume roughly 4000 per day. That's not a big enough difference to account for the obesity rates.)
As far as the low Slashdot ID, are you jealous, AC?
While I agree with you, your argument lacks cohesion. Did you forget a paragraph going from a "myriad [of] consequential effects of the various substances you... take in" to "any [drug] dependency... is an indicator that something deeper is going wrong"? NB: I am not trying to be an ass.
These studies to which you refer are probably the myriad of studies showing how bad the crap added to our food is. Drugs have nothing (or little, more often maybe) to do with it. Most people suffering from depression (This is NOT a joke!) can be done with it in about two weeks by eliminated high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from their diet. This usually means not drinking pop and buying the expensive condiments. Many more will recover by also eliminating white sugar. This is more difficult but possible. If you like candy, you will need to learn to make your own from natural unrefined sweeteners such as honey, maple syrup (the real kind, not "maple-flavored syrup". You'll pay big bucks for it but it is worth every penny), and stevia for those that want it calorie free. The other big cause of depression in our food and beverages is artificial sweeteners, including but not limited to aspartame, saccharin and sucralose. These are actually worse than sugar and HFCS and will cause you to GAIN WEIGHT if you use too much. If you ditch those sweeteners entirely, you WILL lose weight and probably get over depression.
Remember, the only reason you don't know how bad this stuff is is because depressed people will consume more of it. Like the companies that sell this shit want you eating less. That's why they pay megabucks to develop artificial sweeteners that make you fat. You'll buy more of it. NB: HFCS is also artificial. It is a chemical cocktail produced from corn. Sucralose (Splenda) is also a chemical, created from corn using petroleum.
If there was, it should show up under Windows as well.
Not necessarily. Windows is very tolerant of poor quality hardware. Linux is not. Case in point: I had a P3-800 with 3 256MB DIMMs. One was bad. I had Windows98 on it for years and it ran as well as expected. I added Gentoo as a dualboot and it was unstable as balls. Windows still ran fine. I replaced the RAM and BAM Gentoo was stable again, in fact, way more stable than Windows. Windows was unchanged. Moral of the story: Windows is crap designed to run on crap; Linux is good stuff (when done right) that requires good hardware to run. Not top-end, but good, as in functional.
FreeBSD is much the same as Linux, although I like better for stock uses like Apache and Samba. Linux, I think, is better for 3rd party apps, like Steam-based Dedicated Servers (Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat and related) and other game dedicated servers. Windows is not a very good server OS at all. While administration may "easier" because it's GUI, that GUI just serves to slow it down and causes instability. Case in point: I have a Cybercafe whose administration software runs only on Windows. It uses an MS Access backend. I also have to run a license server for Steam-based games on the same machine. Those two servers alone cause the sound to lag to the point where sound is useless even when they idle. Web Browsing is a bitch and it's not like we can afford to have this box not be used as an interface to the cybercafe software. And we're not talking a crap machine either. It's got a 2.6GHz Celeron D and 1GB PC3200-DDR2 SDRAM. Contrast this with a FreeBSD machine running a Samba printer and 5 shared drives used by 22 other system, on a P3-800 with 768MB PC100. No lag in Firefox in X even under a heavy load, like 20 machines grabbing 2GB of files each and one machine printing out report after report.
Linux is great as a server OS for many tasks but it's definitely not all things. Windows, on the other hand, sucks as a server OS but it's usuability makes it very worthwhile for apps that can handle a slight amount of instability, like web browsing, games and typing documents.
I disagree with your assessment of Gentoo. I find it to be lower maintanence than other distros that I've tried. Once you know how to configure Gentoo and what apps to install, maintanence is a breeze. An occasional "emerge -uaDN world" followed up by a "etc-update". Most updates in etc-update can be -5'd, once you know what you're looking at. I've found that installing services is easier on Gentoo than just about anything. Just emerge it, etc-update if necessary, and rc-update add service default/boot/whatever. In fact, I run two Gentoo servers in a production environment and I spend less maintanence on both combined than on any one Windows machine I care for. I couldn't even figure out how to configure Fedora to do anything I needed done when I tested it out. Their GUI configurators are slow and tedious compared to editing a couple of files in/etc. Hell, I just recently made a Gentoo-based Counter-Strike Source dedicated server with a cronjob for automatic updates and autorestart on boot for SRCDS in less time than it took me to install Fedora on a faster test system for a friend. I haven't touched my other Gentoo machine (workstation that also handles 5 Samba shares accessed by 22 machines and a shared printer) in two weeks. The last time was for a HD upgrade. I've never had unexpected downtime related to Gentoo. (Electrical problems are another issue.)
I think maintaning Gentoo is easier but maybe I'm more Godlike than most Linux admins.
Computer teacher: Doesn't know what to do to fix the problem but think they do. Won't accept your explanations if your use of jargon differs from thier flawed definition. Doesn't know how to teach subnetting, let alone subnet for themselves, and kicks you out of their class when you teach the class the concept in 20 minutes after they spent 6 class-hours trying to. Hates it when you get a 720 on the MCP exam after not using Win2k for 2 months or attending class in that time, and they took practice exams three times a day for the 30 days leading up to the exam and only got a 540 (minumum passing grade at the time). Especially when you and the other dude that missed 45 straight days were the only students out of 10 that passed. Doesn't understand that grabbing an IP address from a DHCP server does not give you access to password-protected NetWare shares, even though she claims to understand the concepts. (Yes, this lame teacher extisted. I was the only person in her class to get my MCSE, and I only got it after she kicked me out for only showing up every third day to teach my classmates the material. No one learned anything else after I left, according to the students themslelves. The principal thought I was a malicious hacker for knowing more than the teacher and promptly ignored my complaints.)
Do you not believe these mechanisms are self-limiting and have feedback loops?
That's the problem. What is projected is that the feedback loop has flipped to positive feedback meltdown mode. When the icecap starts melting, it becomes less of a heatsink (simply because there isn't as much cold mass) and, as such, cannot sink as much energy. However, the amount of energy it needs to sink isn't going down. It's going up due to greenhouse gases or, at a minimum, staying the same. When the icecaps sink heat they warm up and partially melt. Having a smaller heatsinking capacity means that more ice will melt. Less ice equals less heatsink capacity. But we still need to sink the same energy so even more ice is melted.
Once this tipping point hits, the icecaps go into a feedback loop causing them to melt completely. After they melt, the Earth eventually recools (since it's oceans are cooled by the melted icecap). Unfortunately, the icecaps will be melted before the other loops kick in to restore order. Meanwhile, our coasts are eaten up by the rising oceans causing around 80% of humans to die or relocate since 80% of humans live on the coast.
Don't think that only the North Pole is affected. This same thing has also been projected for Antartica. The data suggests that Antarctica has also entered a meltdown loop.
This isn't all bad though. It's likely that such a shift of water mass on the Earth's crust would cause volcanic activity and seriously change our lands' layout. Old land, polluted and sucked dry of nutrients, would be covered by cleansing and healing water, while new fertile land will be exposed for human use. With a large portion of our population gone, the survivors would have ample farmland to start over.
It is doubtful that enough technology or oil would remain for them to be industrialized. This isn't to say that we will loose our knowledge, just our commercial crap. The currently industrially produced goods would be procured on a stricly need-to-use basis.
Remember, this has already begun and cannot be stopped. Only survived. Beyond the caps, oil has peeked, and both natural gas and coal aren't far behind. Without oil, we can't support more than a billion or so humans on Earth anyway, half that comfortably, so one way or another, a lot of people are going to die before the first half of this century is out. I would be surprised if more than 100 million people survive past 2020.
Slashdot Mirror
I think YOU must be using a different GTK than the rest of us. While several years that may have been true, today I use many, many GTK+ (2.6.9) apps on Windows and they all seem FASTER than their native Windows counterparts. OOo 2.0 loads faster than WordPerfect or MS Word ever did. Gaim does everything better. Gimp loads in only a second or two, whereas Photoshop tool much, much longer. Why do you try something less ancient before bitching about it.
Someone needs to retake Constitutional law. While that maybe how the law reads, the good-ole Supreme Court of United States ruled that the ammendments DO, in fact, apply to states. But, you know, that's only case law from the Supreme Court, making it only the most powerful law in the US. They also ruled that public schools cannot touch student's free speech without unless it ciolates a few rules (it can't be obscene to average man (not child), it can't materially and substantially disrupt the learning environment, they can also censor publications that the school publishes but only the speech goes against the interest of the school). As far as malls go, being a public place, additional constraints cannot be applied. Malls can't tell you to shut up (unless you disrupt business). That's just what the SCOTUS said, not that it's important.
I suppose.
Nothing, because your wrong. Lasers may not EMIT heat, but they sure as hell produce it. Ever use a laser pointer continuously for more than a few minutes?
What is lawlessness?
It's also a proven historical fact that countries with more laws have more criminals. The US has more people in jail than any country but Russia and China and also has the most drug laws. Its also a proven historical fact that crime goes up as inequity goes up. The more rich the rich people are compared to the poor, the more crime there is. Compare Mexico to any country in Europe, the rich people in both countries are just as rich as eachother but Mexico's poor are much more poor, and, lo and behold, Mexico has a crapload more crime. Is the cause lawlessness or is it inequity and ridiculous laws?
That's one reason why Windows XP 64 sucks. Strangely, there's has been a great 64-bit native (in fact, significantly faster on 64-bit than on 32-bit) video editor for Linux for years. It's called Cinelera. The most recent version is ridiculously awesome; I'd say it rivals many commercial compositors (a very advanced type of video editor). Older versions were shitty for MPEG, but more recent versions have fixed that up quite a bit.
Yes, they missed the point but so did you. While Thompson's letter may, at a glance, seem to establish credibility and harassment, it does so only through falsehood. Nearly all of the information in Jack Thompson's letter to the bar that was presented as fact is, at best, misleading and, at worst, blatantly false. That's what you and some of the other posters missed. Here are a few of the, shall I say, mistruths (read: lies):
...gamer idiot (sorry to be redundant)...
...the folks at Think Geek provided, improperly, Penny Arcade with my email address, which had not been widely circulated...
The parent company [to ThinkGeek] is an outfit called Penny Arcade.
Penny Arcade put out a "news story" that was wholly false...
I have written the Police Chief in Seattle and asked that their department investigate this matter...
Any Bar complaint coming from these morons arising out of the above incident is baseless and itself constitutes a violation of a specific federal civil rights statute.
NB That last sentence fragment contained two untruths.
Anyhow, I don't think that a letter containing numerous ad hominem attacks, gratuitous namecalling, and bald-faced lies could possibly be seen in a favorable light by any BAR. And, if anything, a butt of "Me too!"s would probably serve to accentuate the egregiousness of Thompson's behaviour. Besides, when you a thousand people screaming bloody murder who won't shut up, what you do? Piss them off more by letting Jack Thompson off the hook without a fight or get them to shut up by thoroughly investigating their claims.
It sounds an aweful lot like you know absolutely nothing about leftist politics. Communism is not about government control of the people, it's about giving every member of society the means to live comfortably. Just because Russia screwed it up hardcore says nothing of the theory. Communo-anarchism is about as related to communism as chimpanzees are to bonobos; they come from the same ancestor but are completely different.
The communo-ness of my anarchism is simply the manner in which I would have the anarchist society look. It just shows that I want to place an emphasis on the small communities and envision communal living. Other types of anarchists want much the same thing but emphasize different aspects and want for different types of societies and living arrangements. For example, mutualist anarchists want an economy of sorts complete with banks, but without the "usury", ie no interest, rent nor profit. Most types of socio/communo anarchists want a complete abolishion of money. Unlike statists, we anarchists don't have a problem with these seemingly contradictory views being present in our movement; we understand that no one is right and that we all have different views. Having views even slighlty different from a rightist like Rush usually brings bullshit like ad hominem attacks and other logical falicies that Rush and co. are so fond of using. Rush has been "stumped" many times, but I've never heard him admit it; he usually just attacks his adversary on unrelated grounds.
As far as the law goes, do we really need it? Since when does the law stop people from breaking it? And if there was no law, would you start murdering, raping and pillaging? Why would anyone else? (Not directly related to what you said, but anyone who questions anarchy invariably first argues that without the law we would have a continuous stream of rapes, murders and robberies, much like we have today.)
Maybe if he asked to debate someone who was actually a "far-out liberal" (like a socialist, communist or an anarchist), he'd actually get a yes.
To those of you who think they're on the left, you're probably not. Maybe by American standards, you are, but not by the rest of humanity.
PS - If Rush wants to debate a real leftist, I'd be quite happy to do it. Of course, as a communo-anarchist, I may be too far left for his tastes. Meh, who cares?
So all we have to so is put one of these games on shelves and, BAM!, he's actionable. I own a cybercafe and we definitely sell video games. Case closed. (What a dumbass!)
Of course, speaking of technicalities, it seems to me that he was being serious in his letter, and that letter seemed to be an offer. Before he came out with his retraction, several people accepted his offer. Let me think back to business law, offer, acceptance, consideration, legality, remedy and competancy. Unless he's insane I think we got him. One of those dudes who wrote the game needs to get it packaged, I'll sell it, and we'll sue him!
On second thought, I'll just eat my ham sandwich.
I do make it sound quite bleak, don't I? I agree with you that a little bit of proactivity toward the environment and lowering energy use would go long way. Hell, I like the gas tax idea, though I think $10 or $20 would be a better target. I think in the end we would still run into the same problem, just later: we are going to run out of oil. Without oil, we can really only support like 1.5B because we only have so much land space. We need that land for food now, but if we are also using it for fuel, we going to be in trouble. Even with those reductions in energy consumption, we are still talking a whole lot of energy per person. That means a whole lot of land.
Another thing about food: What most people don't realize is that most of our food comes from oil (seriously). Modern farming employs oil-based fertilizers that provide enough energy and nutrients to the plants to allow for a calorie density of the resulting food about ten times what it would be using natural farming techniques. This is the so-called "green revolution." This is also why organic food is so ridiculously expensive. The only reason that its even close to affordable is because profit margins are much lower than those of standard commercial products. This is why we're so screwed when we run out of petroleum. Without it, we would have a hard time FEEDING our current population with the land we have. Now try fueling them.
"Well, that's where government needs to step in... when something is necessary but the market doesn't support it in the short-term."
Well, now that's going to be a problem once you realize the overall solution. The problem is that oil, natural gas and coal are virtually free energy. It gives us 30 times the energy we put in to getting it. Everything that replaces it (short of fusion) gives much less. Alcohol, for example, give 1.53J per J used to obtain. Hydrogen takes energy to get, so its, at best, a storage system, and not a good one. Grain actually gives out like 2J/J, so its better than alcohol. The problem is that to provide every one on earth today with thier energy needs through non-fossil fuels would take more land than the entire Earth has. Much more. At today's consumption levels, without fossil fuels, we can only sustain about 750 Million people. If we cut down to more reasonable levels of consumption, we'd be able to get 1.5 Billion, 2 would be a stretch. Now why's this a problem? We have already used half of our oil and we'll be to levels too low to sustain our economies by no later than 2015, probably earlier. Natural gas and coal aren't far behind, but the process of converting to those fuels would push them past the point before the infrastructure was complete, rendering them worthless. Even if we found a large oil deposit (even one as large as all of the oil we have found to date), we would do little but delay the inevitable.
So what's the overall solution? War (over oil), famine, then death. Of 5 billion people (minimum).
Sorry.
Are you serious?!? You use Telnet? For security? Why not a recent OpenSSH? At least then you'll have some semblence of security instead of plain text over whatever untrusted network. (Whoosh. [Let's out sigh] Now that I've caught my breath.) Man, I don't think I've heard anyone say Telnet in quite a while. Almost had a heart attack.
Actually, those two SIMMs were a ridiculously expensive upgrade. I remember going through old invoives for my dad after a fire in 1996 and I saw that he had to pay something like $600 extra for the upgrade from 512kiB to 640kiB. All told, he payed around $5000 for his first computer in 1988 (or so, I was like 4 at the time). He needed the upgrade so he could run his $10000 accounting software (that he still uses, in a fullscreen DOS on a Win98 machine with a Cyrix MX200. Every four years or so, he pays a $5000 upgrade fee. The craziest part is the software, one of two products the company makes, still (released last year) only requires DOS 6.0. Going to Win98 was only because the new Hasp (a hardware-based CD-key equivalent) requires it; he broke the original last year when the 5th pin fell out. If he still had, he'd still be using DOS 6.22. He had Win3.1 but never used it because it sucks.)
Here's another terrible punshment:
1. Strip advertiser naked.
2. Put his penis in a vice.
3. Tighten.
4. Show him gay porn.
5. Goto step 1.
Dude, learn to use enter. Make some paragraphs. Maybe add in some structure. Is that the entire article? WTF? Why did you waste our time with that post? Why did I waste my time writing this? Anyway, if you mod the parent down, my post won't be read, so don't bother modding me. I like my karma. And marijuana. And alcohol. Obviously. Heh heh.
Tell me about it. I watch TV quite a bit, but lately its been less. I can only manage to get 2 or 3 hours of TV per day and that's if I try. I find that if I start to read something interesting on the Internet, I can be so sucked in that it eats into my TV time. No big loss though. The funny thing is that I thought I watched MORE TV than average. To find out that 3 hours is light almost makes me sick. The worst part, though, is that most of MY day is taken up. I don't even have time to clean my room, house, car, etc. How can these people function in society. Here's an average day for me:
4 PM : Wake up, take shower, whatnot (I know, PM is correct)
6 PM : Leave for work
6:30 : Get to work.
4 AM : Leave for home.
4:30 : Get there, start laundery, maybe clean, start watching TV.
7:30 : Go to bed.
To make this work, I eat two meals at my job. I have to skip passive entertainment when I need to shop. I don't get how anyone could fit more TV into their schedule without giving something up. I suppose I work quite a bit longer than most, though. And I actually get a full night's (day's) sleep. I think I may need to change things to have a life, now that I look at it. As it stands, whiskey is entirely out of the question. Meh...
That's what video buffers are for. Just keep a big enough buffer to account for shots being made from some obscene distance and you've got yourself covered (like say 2000m). Of course, why worry about the audio? The cideo ought to have you covered. Now lets combine this trajectory tracking and source finding technology with the automatic turret that Slashdot covered a week ago and, viola, you have a soldier killing robot. First person to shoot, the robot kills you. Now let's just keep this out of the governments hands...
First, as someone already noted, there's no such thing as a non-10baseT hub. All 100baseTX and Gigabit switches are switches. Don't worry about Win2k. It's not really important. Watch out on the switch. Don't (repeat: DO FUCKING NOT) cheap out on the switch. Many cheaper switches are really a bridge (2-port switch) connected to a big 10baseT hub. Worthless. Others are really Switches but can only handle so much aggregate bandwidth between ports. In other words, all ports individually can do gigabit or whatever, but altogether they can only handle some lower than expected bandwidth. For example, port1 can talk to port2 at 1000Mbit/s but if port3 talks to port4 at the same time then both conversations may only take place at 500Mbit/s each. Imagine having one of cheapasses as a 20-port with all twenty in use at the same time.
For a 20-port Gigabit worth it's salt expect to pay at least $300. For an 8-port pay at least $125. For cards, you should be able to get away with about $15. Even if you find ISA and have ISA in your Win98 PCs, go with PCI; you'll notice the difference. If you have PCIe available, use it; you'll notice the difference. (Your Win98's won't have it, but new PCs will.) If you don't skimp out and go gigabit, you will mare bandwidth than you can handle. If you're going to skimp out (Don't, you WILL regret it.), you may as well get a 10baseT hub and bulk 10baseT cards. It'll give you the same performance as the cheapass gigabits.
As far as QoS, if you get a decent switch, it'll have it built in. Just read up on it. But with Gigabit, I doubt you'll need it.
If he was talking about streaming to a boatlaod of people then some type of multicast is in order. That will save mega bandwidth. I'm not much of an expert in multicast and I'm not sure what the questioner wants his streams to do but it sounds like he wants to stream to many people on the college network. Multicast will be a must.
As far as the low Slashdot ID, are you jealous, AC?
While I agree with you, your argument lacks cohesion. Did you forget a paragraph going from a "myriad [of] consequential effects of the various substances you ... take in" to "any [drug] dependency ... is an indicator that something deeper is going wrong"? NB: I am not trying to be an ass.
These studies to which you refer are probably the myriad of studies showing how bad the crap added to our food is. Drugs have nothing (or little, more often maybe) to do with it. Most people suffering from depression (This is NOT a joke!) can be done with it in about two weeks by eliminated high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from their diet. This usually means not drinking pop and buying the expensive condiments. Many more will recover by also eliminating white sugar. This is more difficult but possible. If you like candy, you will need to learn to make your own from natural unrefined sweeteners such as honey, maple syrup (the real kind, not "maple-flavored syrup". You'll pay big bucks for it but it is worth every penny), and stevia for those that want it calorie free. The other big cause of depression in our food and beverages is artificial sweeteners, including but not limited to aspartame, saccharin and sucralose. These are actually worse than sugar and HFCS and will cause you to GAIN WEIGHT if you use too much. If you ditch those sweeteners entirely, you WILL lose weight and probably get over depression.
Remember, the only reason you don't know how bad this stuff is is because depressed people will consume more of it. Like the companies that sell this shit want you eating less. That's why they pay megabucks to develop artificial sweeteners that make you fat. You'll buy more of it. NB: HFCS is also artificial. It is a chemical cocktail produced from corn. Sucralose (Splenda) is also a chemical, created from corn using petroleum.
Not necessarily. Windows is very tolerant of poor quality hardware. Linux is not. Case in point: I had a P3-800 with 3 256MB DIMMs. One was bad. I had Windows98 on it for years and it ran as well as expected. I added Gentoo as a dualboot and it was unstable as balls. Windows still ran fine. I replaced the RAM and BAM Gentoo was stable again, in fact, way more stable than Windows. Windows was unchanged. Moral of the story: Windows is crap designed to run on crap; Linux is good stuff (when done right) that requires good hardware to run. Not top-end, but good, as in functional.
FreeBSD is much the same as Linux, although I like better for stock uses like Apache and Samba. Linux, I think, is better for 3rd party apps, like Steam-based Dedicated Servers (Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat and related) and other game dedicated servers. Windows is not a very good server OS at all. While administration may "easier" because it's GUI, that GUI just serves to slow it down and causes instability. Case in point: I have a Cybercafe whose administration software runs only on Windows. It uses an MS Access backend. I also have to run a license server for Steam-based games on the same machine. Those two servers alone cause the sound to lag to the point where sound is useless even when they idle. Web Browsing is a bitch and it's not like we can afford to have this box not be used as an interface to the cybercafe software. And we're not talking a crap machine either. It's got a 2.6GHz Celeron D and 1GB PC3200-DDR2 SDRAM. Contrast this with a FreeBSD machine running a Samba printer and 5 shared drives used by 22 other system, on a P3-800 with 768MB PC100. No lag in Firefox in X even under a heavy load, like 20 machines grabbing 2GB of files each and one machine printing out report after report.
Linux is great as a server OS for many tasks but it's definitely not all things. Windows, on the other hand, sucks as a server OS but it's usuability makes it very worthwhile for apps that can handle a slight amount of instability, like web browsing, games and typing documents.
</RANT>
I disagree with your assessment of Gentoo. I find it to be lower maintanence than other distros that I've tried. Once you know how to configure Gentoo and what apps to install, maintanence is a breeze. An occasional "emerge -uaDN world" followed up by a "etc-update". Most updates in etc-update can be -5'd, once you know what you're looking at. I've found that installing services is easier on Gentoo than just about anything. Just emerge it, etc-update if necessary, and rc-update add service default/boot/whatever. In fact, I run two Gentoo servers in a production environment and I spend less maintanence on both combined than on any one Windows machine I care for. I couldn't even figure out how to configure Fedora to do anything I needed done when I tested it out. Their GUI configurators are slow and tedious compared to editing a couple of files in /etc. Hell, I just recently made a Gentoo-based Counter-Strike Source dedicated server with a cronjob for automatic updates and autorestart on boot for SRCDS in less time than it took me to install Fedora on a faster test system for a friend. I haven't touched my other Gentoo machine (workstation that also handles 5 Samba shares accessed by 22 machines and a shared printer) in two weeks. The last time was for a HD upgrade. I've never had unexpected downtime related to Gentoo. (Electrical problems are another issue.)
I think maintaning Gentoo is easier but maybe I'm more Godlike than most Linux admins.
Computer teacher: Doesn't know what to do to fix the problem but think they do. Won't accept your explanations if your use of jargon differs from thier flawed definition. Doesn't know how to teach subnetting, let alone subnet for themselves, and kicks you out of their class when you teach the class the concept in 20 minutes after they spent 6 class-hours trying to. Hates it when you get a 720 on the MCP exam after not using Win2k for 2 months or attending class in that time, and they took practice exams three times a day for the 30 days leading up to the exam and only got a 540 (minumum passing grade at the time). Especially when you and the other dude that missed 45 straight days were the only students out of 10 that passed. Doesn't understand that grabbing an IP address from a DHCP server does not give you access to password-protected NetWare shares, even though she claims to understand the concepts. (Yes, this lame teacher extisted. I was the only person in her class to get my MCSE, and I only got it after she kicked me out for only showing up every third day to teach my classmates the material. No one learned anything else after I left, according to the students themslelves. The principal thought I was a malicious hacker for knowing more than the teacher and promptly ignored my complaints.)
That's the problem. What is projected is that the feedback loop has flipped to positive feedback meltdown mode. When the icecap starts melting, it becomes less of a heatsink (simply because there isn't as much cold mass) and, as such, cannot sink as much energy. However, the amount of energy it needs to sink isn't going down. It's going up due to greenhouse gases or, at a minimum, staying the same. When the icecaps sink heat they warm up and partially melt. Having a smaller heatsinking capacity means that more ice will melt. Less ice equals less heatsink capacity. But we still need to sink the same energy so even more ice is melted.
Once this tipping point hits, the icecaps go into a feedback loop causing them to melt completely. After they melt, the Earth eventually recools (since it's oceans are cooled by the melted icecap). Unfortunately, the icecaps will be melted before the other loops kick in to restore order. Meanwhile, our coasts are eaten up by the rising oceans causing around 80% of humans to die or relocate since 80% of humans live on the coast.
Don't think that only the North Pole is affected. This same thing has also been projected for Antartica. The data suggests that Antarctica has also entered a meltdown loop.
This isn't all bad though. It's likely that such a shift of water mass on the Earth's crust would cause volcanic activity and seriously change our lands' layout. Old land, polluted and sucked dry of nutrients, would be covered by cleansing and healing water, while new fertile land will be exposed for human use. With a large portion of our population gone, the survivors would have ample farmland to start over.
It is doubtful that enough technology or oil would remain for them to be industrialized. This isn't to say that we will loose our knowledge, just our commercial crap. The currently industrially produced goods would be procured on a stricly need-to-use basis.
Remember, this has already begun and cannot be stopped. Only survived. Beyond the caps, oil has peeked, and both natural gas and coal aren't far behind. Without oil, we can't support more than a billion or so humans on Earth anyway, half that comfortably, so one way or another, a lot of people are going to die before the first half of this century is out. I would be surprised if more than 100 million people survive past 2020.