The difference is that there is nothing else to do, no other point to Counter-Strike than "kill the other team." WoW has plenty of other things to do. If I'm out picking daisies I get perturbed when some asshat comes along and and kills me, then camps me for half an hour just because he can. The only thing he is "winning" is the satisfaction of being a damn griefer, while I'm "losing" my daisy picking time that I paid Blizzard for. If there was nothing else to do in the game other than fight other players, then complaining about getting killed would be stupid. But there are plenty of other things to do in WoW that don't involve being camped.
Yes, I know, "Roll PvE carebear". I got tricked by a buddy into rolling on a PvP server even though I'm not at all a PvP lover. And honestly, I had less complaints about ganking when I was out leveling than I do now that I'm max level. Because paradoxically, there is FAR more power gap between 60s than there ever was between two 45s or even two 59s. So when you're out grinding at 35 or 45, you tend to only encounter the opposite faction in ones and twos, and unless they're bored 60s, they tend to be a similar level. The power gap is fairly small, and you often stand a decent chance even if you get jumped. But once you hit 60 and go into the 55-60 areas with your lame early 60 gear, you just get destroyed by roving bands of bored asshat 60s who have nothing to do but grief the hell out of you while they're waiting for their next raid to form up.
It's a clash of playstyles that's just never going to get resolved. Personally I know how to solve the issue for myself, though. If WAR is going to be all about PvP, I probably won't play. Let the PvPers have their game. I'm cool with that.
The idea of everyone having an IQ of 300, being able to sleep 4 hours a week, and never getting sick may sound great to some, but where does it stop? After we've reached the point of greatly diminishing returns from drugs, do we turn to machines for enhancment? Do we augment ourselves with embedded computer chips, use genetic engineering to enhance our characteristics, or completely tailor our bodies and minds into something we can't even imagine today?
Yup. It's called Transhumanism, and a lot of people subscribe to its basic philosophy of augmenting human beings with technology and medecine to create perhaps a higher lifeform.
Cool, thanks. That's interesting to know. I personally prefer historically accurate weapons too. I bought a sword from Museum Replicas about two or three years ago, and have been recieveing their catalogue every month ever since. I've noticed a distressing decline in the number of swords even billed as historical swords (and I wouldn't have known about that Viking sword if you hadn't pointed it out) and a corresponding increase in media tie-in fantasy swords and clothing. Good to know there's a place to go for "real" historically accurate weapons.
The OP is essentially saying the US has the right to make judgements against people who aren't US citizens, don't live in the US, and don't do business in the US. THAT'S flamebait.
No, what the OP is saying is that the US has the right to make judgements against people who aren't US citizens WHEN THOSE PEOPLE IMPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGE that the US court in question has jurisdiction. The point is, if Spamhaus hadn't specifically requested that the US Federal court hear the case, they probably wouldn't be in this mess at all, because the case WOULD have been dismissed as you claim it should have. However, they implicitly acknowledged the jurisdiction of the US Federal courts (rightly or wrongly--probably WRONGLY) and now are paying for that screw-up by getting a summary judgement against them because they didn't show up for the case.
One unusual acronym is 'PA' which can mean Power Amp, Public Address, Prince Albert, Pennsylvania, Panama, Physician's Assistant, Power of Attorney, Press Agent, Production Assistant, and probably more.
You missed the obvious gamer geek one: Penny Arcade
It's not arrogance. It's almost certainly ignorance. Most Americans don't even know other countries write dates in a different format. I'm sure the programmers who do know this (and who think about it at the time they're developing) put in the option for different formats.
No, it wont. The whole idea of rebates is to be able to advertise something at a lower price ("PRICE AFTER REBATE: $99.95!") then make the purchaser jump through so many hoops to get his or her money back that they end up not bothering. That way, you get more people in to the store to buy the product, and you get to pocket the $30 rebate you advertised when the purchaser realizes they have to sacrifice their first born to actually get their money back from you.
Since that time, many teams have gone so far as to have a defensive specialist first basement who is on the roster for the sole purpose of playing the field late in the game.
The 86 Red Sox had such a player, though. His name was Steve Sax. He came in as a late inning defensive replacement for Buckner in every one of Boston's post season victories that year. He wasn't in Game 6 because McNamara (Red Sox manager at the time) wanted Buckner to be on the field to "enjoy the celebration". Of course, we know he never got to do that.
I'm not bitter though. Not anymore. 2004 erased all those sour memories. I can watch that RBI Baseball recreation and laugh now, whereas just hearing Vin Scully's call of the Buckner error pre-2004 would have been enough to make me cringe.
Blah. Missed the part I *actually* wanted to reply to in my post. The "bachelor's degree required" part of most job postings related to systems or network administration can usually be safely ignored. They're put on there by HR drones who don't freaking know any better. It's true that you may get tossed out in the first cut if the HR drones are the ones doing the resume culling for lack of a degree. But I've yet to meet a real systems or network admin person who actually cares a bit if you went to college or not. I work with two admins who both learned their chops in the military (one Air Force, one Army). Neither of them have degrees, and I can't imagine anybody caring that they don't. Personally, I have a four year degree... in English Literature. I hide that at the bottom of my resume and always have to field the inevitable question in every interview about how I got into computers. I can't say that my degree has ever opened any doors for me, but it may have gotten me past a few HR drones doing the "first pass" over a stack of resumes. *shrug*
Anyway, just apply anyway. If you can get your resume on the desk of a person who actually knows anything at all about the career, it won't matter that you don't have a degree.
Thing is, it doesn't matter a whit if you got a CS degree if you're going to be a systems or network administrator. I've yet to see a college that offers a degree path in what I do (UNIX and Linux system administration). There's tons of programmer types out there that *think* they can do my job, but being a great software engineer doesn't at all prepare you for administering enterprise level systems or networks, any more than knowing precisely how an internal combustion engine works makes you an auto mechanic. System administration is more of a skilled trade like carpentry or plumbing than it is a "professional" career path. The way most of us learned our chops was through the old fashioned apprentice system. You learn the basics on your own, you hire on to a company as a junior admin, and you make the effort to learn from the senior admins everything you can until you're one of them. Then you probably have to quit and find a new job so you'll get the raise you deserve;-)
The benefit of this system is that hardly anyone hiring for a systems or network admin position cares a whit if you went to college or not. They care where you learned your craft, and how well you learned it. Getting your first job might be tough, but once you can show you've done the work before and can demonstrate knowledge in an interview, you're pretty much golden.
-- Dave
Re:2 passwords instead of 1
on
Sudo vs. Root
·
· Score: 1
Uh. Not if you have sudo set up the way it normally is. That is, you only need your own password to get root access, via "sudo su" or "sudo -s".
Wow, what alternate reality are you from where the "runner-up becomes VP" change didn't happen until Post-WWII? Because in this reality, it happened in 1804, as a direct response to the contested election of 1800.
I can go on and on... just getting in my two cents in.
Oh, please do. Tell me about the one where women didn't get the right to vote until 1974!
I've seen developers chmod 777 their files because they don't understand permissions.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why developers do this? I can tell you from long experience as a UNIX sysadmin, developers will 777 every file they work on if you allow it. WHY IS THIS? Please explain this to me! Even the ones that claim to know Linux/UNIX will do this eventually. I have not YET seen a development environment that WASN'T completely 777 if the developers had the ability to do it.
WHY? WHY? I DON'T GET IT!
The permission system is not that hard to understand! You guys constantly remind me how friggin god-like you are because you sling code for a living, please just one of you tell me why chmod 777 is your favorite friggin command??
You know, this would be fine if developers actually had a clue about admining a system. All of them think they can, but I have yet to meet one who really can.
Here's what happens when you give developers control of systems. In about two seconds, every file they're working on becomes chmod 777, because they can't be bothered to learn to work within the security system. Then they wonder why, when the stuff is moved to production and the correct security priviledges restored (at BEST I would allow 775, but you'd be freaking stunned how often just taking away write priviledge from "other" breaks their shitty code), it wont run properly, or will only run as root.
I see this time and time again. They always claim "Oh, I run Linux at home" or "I've developed on UNIX for years" but then do basic, boneheaded things like that because they can't be bothered to figure out how to do it right.
I totally believe there are developers out there who also know more than I ever will about managing a UNIX system. But I've yet to meet one.
You keep throwing out this "50% this, 50% that" stuff. You're not understanding QM right at all. QM doesn't say Schrodinger's cat is "50% alive and 50% dead" at all. It says it is 100% alive and 100% dead simultaneously, until observed. Once observed, the wavefunction collapses, and the cat is one or the other.
Well, that's certainly noble of you. Have fun with your reading.
As for there not being a "Constitutional right to an abortion," I admit that statement perhaps goes too far--the ruling, as we both noted, is based on the "right to privacy", another Constitutional guarantee not exactly spelled out anywhere in the Constitution but nonetheless illuminated (some would say created) by the SCOTUS in several decisions (check out this for some more reading.)
So as I said, overturning Roe v. Wade could very well endanger this privacy protection. That's because in order for the SCOTUS to overturn Roe, they would have to do one of two things. Either decide that abortion is for some reason not protected by this right to privacy (and for all the work the Court did previously to show that it *is* protected, that might be tough), or to decide that this "right to privacy" doesn't exist at all, so the basis for Roe is void. This actually would probably be an even harder path to take, as the right to privacy, no matter how shaky some feel it is Constitutionally, is on pretty firm ground precedent-wise.
As for there being some Republicans who don't seek to outlaw abortion, of course you're right. But I was speaking of the party as a whole, not every individual member. I can say that "Democrats seek a repeal of the Bush tax cuts" and be telling the truth, even if certain individual Democrats don't seek that, or don't care either way about the tax cuts. The party line is still a repeal of the tax cuts, just as the Republican party line is to seek a repeal of Roe v. Wade.
Uh, no. If that were the case, instead of having to overturn a SCOTUS decision, the Republicans would only have to pass new laws saying the old laws "legalizing" abortion are void, and that abortion is now illegal in all cases. The fact that they haven't done that shows the fallacy of your statement.
What Roe v Wade decided was that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion, and therefore the government has no power to prevent her from having one in most cases. It struck down state laws outlawing abortion as un-constitutional, and thus abortion became legal by default. States can (and have) try to restrict abotion in other ways, but outright banning of it has certainly been declared un-constitutional.
The decision said nothing at all about it being the Federal government's job to decide. In fact, it said it was nobody's job except the woman herself. That's why in order to outlaw it again, pro-lifers need to either get a constitutional ammendment making it illegal, or have the SCOTUS revisit the decision and decide they were wrong the first time, there's no constitutional right to an abortion. To do that, however, would probably *also* overturn our dubious "constitutional right to privacy", since the Roe v Wade decision was based on that right in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Katz articles remain the only thing I have ever blocked on Slashdot. Ah, memories.
-- Dave
The difference is that there is nothing else to do, no other point to Counter-Strike than "kill the other team." WoW has plenty of other things to do. If I'm out picking daisies I get perturbed when some asshat comes along and and kills me, then camps me for half an hour just because he can. The only thing he is "winning" is the satisfaction of being a damn griefer, while I'm "losing" my daisy picking time that I paid Blizzard for. If there was nothing else to do in the game other than fight other players, then complaining about getting killed would be stupid. But there are plenty of other things to do in WoW that don't involve being camped.
Yes, I know, "Roll PvE carebear". I got tricked by a buddy into rolling on a PvP server even though I'm not at all a PvP lover. And honestly, I had less complaints about ganking when I was out leveling than I do now that I'm max level. Because paradoxically, there is FAR more power gap between 60s than there ever was between two 45s or even two 59s. So when you're out grinding at 35 or 45, you tend to only encounter the opposite faction in ones and twos, and unless they're bored 60s, they tend to be a similar level. The power gap is fairly small, and you often stand a decent chance even if you get jumped. But once you hit 60 and go into the 55-60 areas with your lame early 60 gear, you just get destroyed by roving bands of bored asshat 60s who have nothing to do but grief the hell out of you while they're waiting for their next raid to form up.
It's a clash of playstyles that's just never going to get resolved. Personally I know how to solve the issue for myself, though. If WAR is going to be all about PvP, I probably won't play. Let the PvPers have their game. I'm cool with that.
-- Dave
Yup. It's called Transhumanism, and a lot of people subscribe to its basic philosophy of augmenting human beings with technology and medecine to create perhaps a higher lifeform.
-- Dave
Cool, thanks. That's interesting to know. I personally prefer historically accurate weapons too. I bought a sword from Museum Replicas about two or three years ago, and have been recieveing their catalogue every month ever since. I've noticed a distressing decline in the number of swords even billed as historical swords (and I wouldn't have known about that Viking sword if you hadn't pointed it out) and a corresponding increase in media tie-in fantasy swords and clothing. Good to know there's a place to go for "real" historically accurate weapons.
They cost an arm and a leg, though.
-- Dave
So how do swords from that site differ from swords from a place like Museum Replicas?
The OP is essentially saying the US has the right to make judgements against people who aren't US citizens, don't live in the US, and don't do business in the US. THAT'S flamebait.
No, what the OP is saying is that the US has the right to make judgements against people who aren't US citizens WHEN THOSE PEOPLE IMPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGE that the US court in question has jurisdiction. The point is, if Spamhaus hadn't specifically requested that the US Federal court hear the case, they probably wouldn't be in this mess at all, because the case WOULD have been dismissed as you claim it should have. However, they implicitly acknowledged the jurisdiction of the US Federal courts (rightly or wrongly--probably WRONGLY) and now are paying for that screw-up by getting a summary judgement against them because they didn't show up for the case.
-- Dave
One unusual acronym is 'PA' which can mean Power Amp, Public Address, Prince Albert, Pennsylvania, Panama, Physician's Assistant, Power of Attorney, Press Agent, Production Assistant, and probably more.
You missed the obvious gamer geek one: Penny Arcade
-- Dave
They're supposed to be pronounced DIFFERENTLY?
-- Dave
It's not arrogance. It's almost certainly ignorance. Most Americans don't even know other countries write dates in a different format. I'm sure the programmers who do know this (and who think about it at the time they're developing) put in the option for different formats.
-- Dave
No, it wont. The whole idea of rebates is to be able to advertise something at a lower price ("PRICE AFTER REBATE: $99.95!") then make the purchaser jump through so many hoops to get his or her money back that they end up not bothering. That way, you get more people in to the store to buy the product, and you get to pocket the $30 rebate you advertised when the purchaser realizes they have to sacrifice their first born to actually get their money back from you.
-- Dave
Plus, EMC bought Data General, they werne't "formerly a part of" DG
-- Dave
Duh. Right. Stapes was the guy. Steve Sax was... Some other guy.
-- Dave
The 86 Red Sox had such a player, though. His name was Steve Sax. He came in as a late inning defensive replacement for Buckner in every one of Boston's post season victories that year. He wasn't in Game 6 because McNamara (Red Sox manager at the time) wanted Buckner to be on the field to "enjoy the celebration". Of course, we know he never got to do that.
I'm not bitter though. Not anymore. 2004 erased all those sour memories. I can watch that RBI Baseball recreation and laugh now, whereas just hearing Vin Scully's call of the Buckner error pre-2004 would have been enough to make me cringe.
-- Dave
Blah. Missed the part I *actually* wanted to reply to in my post. The "bachelor's degree required" part of most job postings related to systems or network administration can usually be safely ignored. They're put on there by HR drones who don't freaking know any better. It's true that you may get tossed out in the first cut if the HR drones are the ones doing the resume culling for lack of a degree. But I've yet to meet a real systems or network admin person who actually cares a bit if you went to college or not. I work with two admins who both learned their chops in the military (one Air Force, one Army). Neither of them have degrees, and I can't imagine anybody caring that they don't. Personally, I have a four year degree... in English Literature. I hide that at the bottom of my resume and always have to field the inevitable question in every interview about how I got into computers. I can't say that my degree has ever opened any doors for me, but it may have gotten me past a few HR drones doing the "first pass" over a stack of resumes. *shrug*
Anyway, just apply anyway. If you can get your resume on the desk of a person who actually knows anything at all about the career, it won't matter that you don't have a degree.
-- Dave
Thing is, it doesn't matter a whit if you got a CS degree if you're going to be a systems or network administrator. I've yet to see a college that offers a degree path in what I do (UNIX and Linux system administration). There's tons of programmer types out there that *think* they can do my job, but being a great software engineer doesn't at all prepare you for administering enterprise level systems or networks, any more than knowing precisely how an internal combustion engine works makes you an auto mechanic. System administration is more of a skilled trade like carpentry or plumbing than it is a "professional" career path. The way most of us learned our chops was through the old fashioned apprentice system. You learn the basics on your own, you hire on to a company as a junior admin, and you make the effort to learn from the senior admins everything you can until you're one of them. Then you probably have to quit and find a new job so you'll get the raise you deserve ;-)
The benefit of this system is that hardly anyone hiring for a systems or network admin position cares a whit if you went to college or not. They care where you learned your craft, and how well you learned it. Getting your first job might be tough, but once you can show you've done the work before and can demonstrate knowledge in an interview, you're pretty much golden.
-- Dave
Uh. Not if you have sudo set up the way it normally is. That is, you only need your own password to get root access, via "sudo su" or "sudo -s".
-- Dave
Only when the choice is "What flavor of Linux should I run?"
-- Dave
Which one is Nicole?
-- Dave
I can go on and on... just getting in my two cents in.
Oh, please do. Tell me about the one where women didn't get the right to vote until 1974!
-- Dave
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why developers do this? I can tell you from long experience as a UNIX sysadmin, developers will 777 every file they work on if you allow it. WHY IS THIS? Please explain this to me! Even the ones that claim to know Linux/UNIX will do this eventually. I have not YET seen a development environment that WASN'T completely 777 if the developers had the ability to do it.
WHY? WHY? I DON'T GET IT!
The permission system is not that hard to understand! You guys constantly remind me how friggin god-like you are because you sling code for a living, please just one of you tell me why chmod 777 is your favorite friggin command??
-- Dave
You know, this would be fine if developers actually had a clue about admining a system. All of them think they can, but I have yet to meet one who really can.
Here's what happens when you give developers control of systems. In about two seconds, every file they're working on becomes chmod 777, because they can't be bothered to learn to work within the security system. Then they wonder why, when the stuff is moved to production and the correct security priviledges restored (at BEST I would allow 775, but you'd be freaking stunned how often just taking away write priviledge from "other" breaks their shitty code), it wont run properly, or will only run as root.
I see this time and time again. They always claim "Oh, I run Linux at home" or "I've developed on UNIX for years" but then do basic, boneheaded things like that because they can't be bothered to figure out how to do it right.
I totally believe there are developers out there who also know more than I ever will about managing a UNIX system. But I've yet to meet one.
-- Dave
You keep throwing out this "50% this, 50% that" stuff. You're not understanding QM right at all. QM doesn't say Schrodinger's cat is "50% alive and 50% dead" at all. It says it is 100% alive and 100% dead simultaneously, until observed. Once observed, the wavefunction collapses, and the cat is one or the other.
-- Dave
As for there not being a "Constitutional right to an abortion," I admit that statement perhaps goes too far--the ruling, as we both noted, is based on the "right to privacy", another Constitutional guarantee not exactly spelled out anywhere in the Constitution but nonetheless illuminated (some would say created) by the SCOTUS in several decisions (check out this for some more reading.)
So as I said, overturning Roe v. Wade could very well endanger this privacy protection. That's because in order for the SCOTUS to overturn Roe, they would have to do one of two things. Either decide that abortion is for some reason not protected by this right to privacy (and for all the work the Court did previously to show that it *is* protected, that might be tough), or to decide that this "right to privacy" doesn't exist at all, so the basis for Roe is void. This actually would probably be an even harder path to take, as the right to privacy, no matter how shaky some feel it is Constitutionally, is on pretty firm ground precedent-wise.
As for there being some Republicans who don't seek to outlaw abortion, of course you're right. But I was speaking of the party as a whole, not every individual member. I can say that "Democrats seek a repeal of the Bush tax cuts" and be telling the truth, even if certain individual Democrats don't seek that, or don't care either way about the tax cuts. The party line is still a repeal of the tax cuts, just as the Republican party line is to seek a repeal of Roe v. Wade.
-- Dave
Uh, no. If that were the case, instead of having to overturn a SCOTUS decision, the Republicans would only have to pass new laws saying the old laws "legalizing" abortion are void, and that abortion is now illegal in all cases. The fact that they haven't done that shows the fallacy of your statement.
What Roe v Wade decided was that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion, and therefore the government has no power to prevent her from having one in most cases. It struck down state laws outlawing abortion as un-constitutional, and thus abortion became legal by default. States can (and have) try to restrict abotion in other ways, but outright banning of it has certainly been declared un-constitutional.
The decision said nothing at all about it being the Federal government's job to decide. In fact, it said it was nobody's job except the woman herself. That's why in order to outlaw it again, pro-lifers need to either get a constitutional ammendment making it illegal, or have the SCOTUS revisit the decision and decide they were wrong the first time, there's no constitutional right to an abortion. To do that, however, would probably *also* overturn our dubious "constitutional right to privacy", since the Roe v Wade decision was based on that right in the first place.
-- Dave
Didn't I hear him say the same exact thing after he saw Wooden Boy in The Phantom Menace? I think Card is just nuts.
-- Dave