Where in the heck do you get the idea that a creationist believes *that* ????? I consider myself to believe in creation, and a created earth, but I can't quite go along with what you described. There are a lot of different creation theories - and a lot of scientists that have reasonable doubts to traditional evolutionary thinking. Don't limit your thinking by stereotyping creationists so severely. Being so quick to discount the other point of view is almost.. religious...:P
Oh geez, i know what you mean. I have a habit of having great ideas or solving a problem just before I get to sleep. I have to leap out of bed and try to write down two or three pages of ideas as quickly as possible before I forget the details.
Most of my best thinking takes place in the shower... kind of hard to write anything down in that situation.
Most folks your age like to write a lot if they are intelligent, which you probably are. Do you write poetry?
Oh come on... that's a loaded question... I was/am (hopefully will be)intelligent, but had and have no desire to write. I hate writing... can't keep up with my thoughts....
However, kids his age typically *are* influenced by peer pressure, and the need to "fit in"; shame on you for wording a question this way!
This question is really bugging me, because the networks are all still projecting Florida to go to Gore, but... statistically, it is more likely to go to Bush at this moment. Are they not able to say "Whoops! We spoke too soon!"
As with most good trolls, it's hard to discern the difference between a good troll and a misinformed post. So here's a play by play analysis:
Remember the problem in RedHat 7 where rhnsd would chew up all the file descriptors in a process of three weeks? I'm hoping that a fiasco like that never happens again. It's sad to see such a good distro company make such a stupid mistake like that and only have a pathetic excuse for it. I think that the problem with filesystem limits is in how they are always surpassed too quickly. Remember FAT16? Its first limit was 33 MB. With DOS 5.0, it became 2.1 GB. Then came FAT32, which has no absolute limit; however, Windows 2000 refuses to format a partition above 32 GB in FAT32 because of the greater efficiency of NTFS.
This paragraph is way off-topic, an completely unrelated to Tux2. The only link I can see is the mistaken notion that file descriptors are related to a filesystem. Well, they're not. They exist in memory, as a part of a different subsystem. Apart from this, this post looks like a typical troll - inflamatory remark, bound to create some discussion. This paragraph make this look more like a troll than a misinformed remark.
One bone I have to pick with ext2 is how the swap partition cannot be adjusted on the fly.
Swap partitions don't use ext2, to the best of my knowledge. The whole point of a swap partition is to eliminate the overhead of a filesystem. And changing partition sizes on the fly is just mad.
My Win2000 machine can adjust the swap file pretty well (with 7 windows of Quake 3, I forced the swap file size from 400 MB to almost 1 GB [!]). Ouch! why in the heck did you do that? At any rate, this is still OT.
Will Tux2 have a dynamic swap partition?
No. Filesystems live inside partitions - as such tux2 has nothing to do with swap partitions.
After all, it's in the damndest situations where you realize that you made the swap partition too small.
Well maybe, but the simple answer to that is, stop running 7 copies of Quake 3! I don't think that every computer system needs to be designed to handle every situation - I certainly don't need a car that has been designed to have a nuke dropped on in, and still function.
So on this basis... intent reflects whether or notthe index carrier is guilty of copywrite infringement.
No, I'd place it more as de facto use. Even if you intend to not commit a crime, if you stand back and allow a crime to take place with your full knowledge, then you are aiding and abetting.
There's one major difference here - napster's primary purpose is to violate copyrights. No? Don't decieve yourself - most files exchanged by napster users is copyrighted material. The "it isn't a perfect copy" argument I've seen around is just bunk. A CD isn't necessarily a perfect copy of the music anyway.
Am I, an ISP, worried about this precedent? No. ISP's, as apposed to napster, primarily serve legitimate and legal needs. Sure, there are a few email that threaten the president, some child porno creeps, but it looks pretty obvious that most use of the Internet falls into legal activity.
OTOH, Napster wouldn't make any money at all if the illegal activity were removed from it's services. This is not a "common carrier" case, it is closer to "aiding and abetting". If you witness a crime but fail to report it, you are liable. Are the creators of napster ignorant of the crimes their software and servers are aiding? doubt it.
Instead of worrying about napster, why don't we worry about finding a way to distribute music easily like this, and provide for the artists at the same time. Those artists that use record labels need to see a reason not to use the record labels. <sarcasm>What a great incentive they have, so far...</sarcasm>
Slashdot Mirror
Where in the heck do you get the idea that a creationist believes *that* ????? I consider myself to believe in creation, and a created earth, but I can't quite go along with what you described. There are a lot of different creation theories - and a lot of scientists that have reasonable doubts to traditional evolutionary thinking. Don't limit your thinking by stereotyping creationists so severely. Being so quick to discount the other point of view is almost.. religious... :P
Most of my best thinking takes place in the shower... kind of hard to write anything down in that situation.
Oh come on... that's a loaded question... I was/am (hopefully will be)intelligent, but had and have no desire to write. I hate writing... can't keep up with my thoughts....
However, kids his age typically *are* influenced by peer pressure, and the need to "fit in"; shame on you for wording a question this way!
Good: Do you write?
Bad: Smart people write... do you?
Unless, of course, your moral compass indicates that illegal activity is wrong.
Looks like the hyperlinks are all offset to the left. The win$inux is really the "L" chopping through the "s".
whether I want to call that beatifull, or if I just want to throw up....
:P
I think I'm just thankfull that I don't know how to do that.
This question is really bugging me, because the networks are all still projecting Florida to go to Gore, but... statistically, it is more likely to go to Bush at this moment. Are they not able to say "Whoops! We spoke too soon!"
Remember the problem in RedHat 7 where rhnsd would chew up all the file descriptors in a process of three weeks? I'm hoping that a fiasco like that never happens again. It's sad to see such a good distro company make such a stupid mistake like that and only have a pathetic excuse for it. I think that the problem with filesystem limits is in how they are always surpassed too quickly. Remember FAT16? Its first limit was 33 MB. With DOS 5.0, it became 2.1 GB. Then came FAT32, which has no absolute limit; however, Windows 2000 refuses to format a partition above 32 GB in FAT32 because of the greater efficiency of NTFS.
This paragraph is way off-topic, an completely unrelated to Tux2. The only link I can see is the mistaken notion that file descriptors are related to a filesystem. Well, they're not. They exist in memory, as a part of a different subsystem. Apart from this, this post looks like a typical troll - inflamatory remark, bound to create some discussion. This paragraph make this look more like a troll than a misinformed remark.
One bone I have to pick with ext2 is how the swap partition cannot be adjusted on the fly.
Swap partitions don't use ext2, to the best of my knowledge. The whole point of a swap partition is to eliminate the overhead of a filesystem. And changing partition sizes on the fly is just mad.
My Win2000 machine can adjust the swap file pretty well (with 7 windows of Quake 3, I forced the swap file size from 400 MB to almost 1 GB [!]).
Ouch! why in the heck did you do that? At any rate, this is still OT.
Will Tux2 have a dynamic swap partition?
No. Filesystems live inside partitions - as such tux2 has nothing to do with swap partitions.
After all, it's in the damndest situations where you realize that you made the swap partition too small.
Well maybe, but the simple answer to that is, stop running 7 copies of Quake 3! I don't think that every computer system needs to be designed to handle every situation - I certainly don't need a car that has been designed to have a nuke dropped on in, and still function.
I don't know whether I'm going to be sick, or if I'm going to go learn Latin. That is some awesome programming!
doesn't work for me. I thought someone mentioned that they locked that down a long time ago. I just don't read NYT stories - that login page is dumb.
Cmon, it's been 6 hours, and I still haven't seen much more than the front page. ahhhh man :(
OTOH, would an .htaccess that denies access based on a referrer header work? There'd be some DOS, but at least you wouldn't be feeding it.
Sheesh, It would have been nice if those of us that had been readers before could have enjoyed the site before /. killed it again. :(
Of course, we can all see that sarcasm tag surrounding that whole post, right? ;)
LOL!
Gotta love that bit about "wait approximately 12-15.4 seconds". So I guess 15.2 seconds is close enough? What's approximate about 15.4 seconds?
I see it weird too, but only the main review page... clicking on a subcomment made the problem go away.
No, I'd place it more as de facto use. Even if you intend to not commit a crime, if you stand back and allow a crime to take place with your full knowledge, then you are aiding and abetting.
There's one major difference here - napster's primary purpose is to violate copyrights. No? Don't decieve yourself - most files exchanged by napster users is copyrighted material. The "it isn't a perfect copy" argument I've seen around is just bunk. A CD isn't necessarily a perfect copy of the music anyway.
Am I, an ISP, worried about this precedent? No. ISP's, as apposed to napster, primarily serve legitimate and legal needs. Sure, there are a few email that threaten the president, some child porno creeps, but it looks pretty obvious that most use of the Internet falls into legal activity.
OTOH, Napster wouldn't make any money at all if the illegal activity were removed from it's services. This is not a "common carrier" case, it is closer to "aiding and abetting". If you witness a crime but fail to report it, you are liable. Are the creators of napster ignorant of the crimes their software and servers are aiding? doubt it.
Instead of worrying about napster, why don't we worry about finding a way to distribute music easily like this, and provide for the artists at the same time. Those artists that use record labels need to see a reason not to use the record labels. <sarcasm>What a great incentive they have, so far...</sarcasm>
wow... :P Well, I see I have a lot to learn... thanks!
For those of us that haven't done much with databases... what do foreign keys do?
Of course, on your major servers, you *do* disable kernel modules, right?
There's no need to have loadable modules on a server with sensitive information.
Ahh, silly me.
Dude - that tarball has the other dists included with it... just unzip them... Might be able to save bandwidth that way.
Sheesh, lots of wine stuff in there. I assume that all GPL issues are taken care of?
What ramifications does this new developement have for the Samba crew? Does this provide enough (legal) information for them to use?