as it takes at least a week to start a polyphasic sleep schedule, sticking with it for only a month wouldn't make much sense.. in any case, I've known people who've done it for several months to a year or more and said it worked well.
Ahh, so you're the person I want to ask this.
I've read many times about the Uberman and similar trained polyphasic sleep cycles, where the individual trains to only sleep in ~20 minute catnaps which will be exclusively REM state sleep?
I've always found it hard to imagine that for people who experience physical as well as stress / mental fatigue would be well served by polyphasic sleep, but perhaps you know something about it.
As I never touch kde, can't speak to that.
As for alsa vs oss in addition to the matter of portability noted by several others, imx oss works better in practice than alsa. e.g. I just installed FC3 at work (cause it was the only linux I could find that would install on the very latest SATA chip on the box in question:
on firing up xmms sound was unacceptably choppy, cutouts every few seconds, xmms was pointed at alsa, I changed that to oss and bingo sound was working fine.
"Ohh whoa is me" descry the possibly 3% of the people out there who might actually favor the Green or Libertarian candidate.
This pair of morons did a publicity stunt specifically intending to get arrested. Big deal.
Their arrest had *nothing whatever* to do with either constitutional free speech rights or election politics.
They attempted to trespass onto private property, and to force their way across a police line.
To the Greens and Libertarians:
Ok you're fucking desperate for attention. Big deal. The Green party *and* Nader are seriously discredited across the US for having handed the election to Bush. Most of Nader's goddamned funding is coming from the Republicans already.
I knew Libertarians were a bunch of goddamned windbags. They whine about theoretical 'solutions' to the political & governmental process which haven't a snowball's chance in hell of passing the electorate, which is the Acid Test in a democracy (remember?). This stunt is the sort of crap expected.
Plays great on/. ignored by everyone else.
Get a clue: When you're even 5% of the vote in a democracy you are *nothing*. You're not an interest block large enough to bargain for a paper bag to contain your crappy ideas.
Back to the *legal* context of these morons' arrests: They trespassed on private property and were duly arrested for that. End of story.
To all the locals whining about why it is that they're stuck with only a 2-party system:
On the one hand I suggest you go look at Italy and think on whether you really want a multitude of parties and the fucked-up coalition building that's part of that.
Second (and more important) --- the last *honorable* 3rd party candidate I can think of was John Anderson who had the guts to run as an independent against Reagan's voodoo economics. Since then we've had Perot who had a very specific axe to grind in getting Bush Sr unseated and had the money to buy his way into a campaign that could accomplish that. He like Nader in '00 was nothing but a spoiler who accomplished nothing but further poisoning thei political process.
Now if the Greens and Libs here actually have anything like the open minds that they might like us to think, I suggest they go find a copy of 'Going up river: The long war of John Kerry' which makes a pretty damned good case why he's not just another mainstream politician. (And why he's a far smarter *and effective* politician than Badnarik or Cobb).
But I'm damned glad to see congresscritters calling the executive branch to task on this.
Bushy is continuing to drone that we will be better served by iraq and afganistan becoming democracies. What he's glossing is that the citizenry of either place seems far more likely to elect for theocracy.
'We' may not like it but if that's the people's choice in that place then it is ineed democracy.
dunno 'bout the ac, I've studied econ @ MIT and you're way the hell off base. While Clinton was hardly my favorite president he did preside over a change from federal deficit to surplus (a surplus which W has managed to reverse into a huge deficit).
Clinton did not create the.com boom, nor the layoffs which followed, have a look at Kondratiev long wave cycles if you want an answer.
3rd party candidates have now decided the results of 2 recent elections. Perot afaics ran against Bush Sr because his company didn't get the support they wanted from him when EDS execs were taken hostage.
Billionaire has grudge; billionaire has tantrum; billionaire buys place in campaign to unseat the guy he doesn't like; billionaire fades into background 'cause the 'organization' he spawned has no staying power.
Nader's an opportunistic asshat, personally I couldn't give a rat's ass what (legal) tactics are used to keep him off the ballots.
I mean honestly I observe a fairly large fraction of libertarians *here on/.* (and in some other rather marginal communities I'm part of). But seriously, l'ism imo is nearly inherently flamebait (and effectivley irrelevant) out among the rest of the world.
Now there's a fair chance this is gonna get marked as flamebate, so be it, however:
The libertarians I've known have uniformly been extraordinarily poor 'amabssadors' for thier professed political views. By which I mean pedantic, nominally idealistic but in reality so narrow-focused on their own solutions to the world's ills that they seem to have no conception that no they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of influencing any real world matters.
Hell even the Greens had the sense to run *Nader* who's at least well enough grounded in political reality to accomplish something. (Even if it was to effectively to sink their own political relevance in the US due to the anger of the rest of us who saw that campaign as a primary reason that we have the unimaginably incompetent GWB 'running' the country).
But anyhow you-all want interview questions, here goes:
How is it that libertarians (yes I'm generalizing based on the ones I know) able to take positions that are so damned far from the mainstream and try to go out and advocate them *and* (seemingly) thinking they're actually accomplishing something with all this?
And to clarify, I'm *no fan* myself of mainstream. My personal views are certainly in many cases a hell of a lot more 'radical' than any libertarian I've met. However I don't take every one of those opinions and try to convince everyone I know that I'm right and they're wrong. I.e. I strive when I go out and actually accomplish stuff to work toward my goals with some sense that others may have goals that differ from mine, and put my ideas out with that reality in mind.
I don't have cars that *anyone* would want to steal or even break into. I don't live in either a poor or pretentious neighborhood, so I'm not inherently a target.
We do live within a few blocks of a large housing project which used to have a fairly serious crime problem but even at the worst of times over many years the worst problems we ever saw was that you couldn't ever leave something obviously valuable e.g. a power tool out overnight.
I do take some precautions for my motorcycle, but as it's not an HD (which are first-rate theft magnets) a good size chain plus a lock through the front disk brake takes care of that problem.
Of course if you gotta have a 30k+ car or if you're in an area that's going through a rough time there may not be such easy solutions.
I expect bush has access to data that you and I don't.
That not withstanding GWB's response to 'Iraq did not materially support or enable Al Quaeda in this' has been reported as 'Find me a connection to Iraq, it has to exist.'. Guess what, when you tell an agency what data / conclusions you want sure enough they can generate reports to match. That process isn't called intelligence, it's called making a culture of 'yes-men'.
So crap yourself, Bush as portrayed by his own nat'l security adviser went into office focused on some mythical big picture, and ignored actual data which ran counter to what he wanted to see.
*After* 9/11 Bush proposed *exactly* the same department of 'homeland security' in name, structure and purpose that has been proposed by rudd/hollings, and which our 'war president' had rejected 6 months prior to the attacks.
I also agreed with many of GWB's reasons for ousting Saddam Hussein, but not his unilateral/blindered approach, and certainly not his lying to the nation and the world about the reasons for starting this war.
We and our children will be paying the financial cost of this war for a decade, and the cost to the respect of our nation for many decades.
I think not. Yes Moore is bombastic, biased etc. His *facts* seem to be pretty well done, however he's certainly chosen to lay them out to best make the point he's trying to make. This is something that the 'free press' in our nation does all the time. usually when cornered they even admit it.
It's also as likely to bolster Bush's supporters with the degree of venom that Moore brings to his subject and protrayal.
Does any of that matter a lot to me? No, Once I saw GWB in his Tux say:
Here I am with the 'haves' [dramatic pause] and the 'have mores'. Some call you the elite [dramatic pause] I call you 'My Base'
...
Coupled with this arrogant bastard's repeated ability to ignore his military's and CIA's and other nation's intelligence reports in favor of his own fscking agenda (basically "we need to eliminate SH from Iraq to stabilize the region") The decision that this moron needs to go was firmly cemented.
And as far as even-handed, I'll take even Moore's work over the 'swift boat veterans for truth(sic)' group, many of whom had nothing bad to say about Kerry, and some of whom earned medals in the same engagement that they now accuse him of lying about.
So Moore 'hurting the process' vs a group that has gotten advice from a (now resigned) administration (US-tax-paid-for) attorney ??!
No comparison. One is clearly using presentation to make a point, the other has clearly broken the rules in recieving material support from actual administration employees and is full of people who can't make up their minds whether they liked Kerry or didn't depending on what office he was running for at the time.
Even the Greens came to realize how much they have lost *politically* due to Nader's spoiler action giving the 00 election to Bush. Whatever (probably little) sympathy Joe Average voter had for the Greens agenda fucking evaporated.
So this *moronic* thread is where we get to see the Libertarians come out in force -- however as they are an even smaller presence than the Greens. I'm not sure where you see a leverage point here, I'm no fan of our 2-party system but the only credible 3rd party candidate available in the 30 years I've been voting was John Anderson. The rest have pretty much been spoilers, particularly Perot and Nader who both managed to tip election results.
Do the math, your point just doesn't work out, whether you prefer Kerry over Bush or not.
However this syntax is non-portable, it's not POSIX and it doesn't work on any other Unix or BSD that I know of.
Yes in some singular instances of typos it can save your ass, however it will not do so in all instances.
*Linux* man pages are generally unmaintained is a true statement. Not so BSDs or the Unix vendors that I have dealt with, where the standard is that if the docs aren't done, the code isn't released.
I've used SFU 3.x since it was beta and it is so far from being a general-purpose Unix variant as to defy imagination. Imagine trying to build say a current version of libpcap+libnet+tcpdump on a vintage '93 HPUX system.
About the only 'modern' component of SFU as it stands today is gcc 3.3 (in sfu 3.0 it was gcc 2.x).
In an era when source development is highly linux-centric and Unix[TM]es now having to adapt to 'linux standards' to ease source code migration this seems like a serious case of 'too little too late'.
Sure, some interesting and useful stuff has been ported to SFU, but many things mormally taken for granted (e.g. emacs, ssh) are marked 'alpha' and even the packages hosted by the SFU team don't 'just build' from their own patched sources. *all of these sources* have already been ported to the native win32 API anyway.
Anyhow if it's not going to be a 'part' of ms's os until the '08 release of Longhorn, I can't see how it's going to be relevant.
Uh huh? and so you're here to prove that people who haven't can also be stupid? Rejoinding an ad-hominem with another ad-hominem isn't exactly the height of dialectic intercourse.
Nowhere do I see where p2p software is being made illegal. This bill is adding a specific class (companies hosting P2P networks *for profit*) for *civil* lawsuit.
No criminal statute here that I can see. Yes the bill is taking aim at p2p -- in expected ways, I dunno (or care-- I don't use p2p nets) if it's good law but the article here is seriously misstating content of the proposed law.
At this level, the human players are decidedly *not* doing anything to intentionally cause the opponent to underestmate thier skill.
In chess as in most competition the first step to *losing* is assuming your opponent will make a mistake (including the mistake of not recognizing *your* mistakes).
'True Ai' exists. AI methods have been tried in chess and so far they simply do not work as well as brute force evaluation based on material gain.
That may change someday however the progress / work to date is no indicator that it's going to be any time soon.
On the other hand games between humans and computers have been considered 'interesting' by master-level players so if that's your criteria for 'True Ai'...
Yes a human chess player has a few neat tools. The primary one is called:
Positional play
Algorithms / heuristics which have attempted to capture this 'intelligent' side of chess players' methodology have uniformly failed and the winning programs continue to primarily rely on simple evaluation of material.
This means that a master-level player has a strong advantage in offering a computer opponent some material in exchange say for superior control of the center of the board.
Advanced chess play has very little to do with 'intuition'. The specific tools that come to bear are:
exhaustive study of openings and endings
solid tactical evaluation (stupid mistakes still lose games)
positional evaluation
generally, for instance it's suicide to allow a game against a machine develop into an 'open' vs a 'closed' position. Tactical evaluation is less effective in closed positions; in open positions the machine's greater depth-search works extremely well.
Viruses which actively cloak their own signatures are quite old.
Virus toolkits used by kiddies might be considered as self-replicating (and it's arguable whether the users of these have higher IQ than the resultant code;-))
Slashdot Mirror
as it takes at least a week to start a polyphasic sleep schedule, sticking with it for only a month wouldn't make much sense .. in any case, I've known people who've done it for several months to a year or more and said it worked well.
Ahh, so you're the person I want to ask this. I've read many times about the Uberman and similar trained polyphasic sleep cycles, where the individual trains to only sleep in ~20 minute catnaps which will be exclusively REM state sleep? I've always found it hard to imagine that for people who experience physical as well as stress / mental fatigue would be well served by polyphasic sleep, but perhaps you know something about it.
As I never touch kde, can't speak to that. As for alsa vs oss in addition to the matter of portability noted by several others, imx oss works better in practice than alsa. e.g. I just installed FC3 at work (cause it was the only linux I could find that would install on the very latest SATA chip on the box in question: on firing up xmms sound was unacceptably choppy, cutouts every few seconds, xmms was pointed at alsa, I changed that to oss and bingo sound was working fine.
This pair of morons did a publicity stunt specifically intending to get arrested. Big deal.
Their arrest had *nothing whatever* to do with either constitutional free speech rights or election politics.
They attempted to trespass onto private property, and to force their way across a police line.
To the Greens and Libertarians:
Ok you're fucking desperate for attention. Big deal. The Green party *and* Nader are seriously discredited across the US for having handed the election to Bush. Most of Nader's goddamned funding is coming from the Republicans already.
I knew Libertarians were a bunch of goddamned windbags. They whine about theoretical 'solutions' to the political & governmental process which haven't a snowball's chance in hell of passing the electorate, which is the Acid Test in a democracy (remember?). This stunt is the sort of crap expected.
Plays great on /. ignored by everyone else.
Get a clue: When you're even 5% of the vote in a democracy you are *nothing*. You're not an interest block large enough to bargain for a paper bag to contain your crappy ideas.
Back to the *legal* context of these morons' arrests: They trespassed on private property and were duly arrested for that. End of story.
To all the locals whining about why it is that they're stuck with only a 2-party system:
On the one hand I suggest you go look at Italy and think on whether you really want a multitude of parties and the fucked-up coalition building that's part of that.
Second (and more important) --- the last *honorable* 3rd party candidate I can think of was John Anderson who had the guts to run as an independent against Reagan's voodoo economics. Since then we've had Perot who had a very specific axe to grind in getting Bush Sr unseated and had the money to buy his way into a campaign that could accomplish that. He like Nader in '00 was nothing but a spoiler who accomplished nothing but further poisoning thei political process.
Now if the Greens and Libs here actually have anything like the open minds that they might like us to think, I suggest they go find a copy of 'Going up river: The long war of John Kerry' which makes a pretty damned good case why he's not just another mainstream politician. (And why he's a far smarter *and effective* politician than Badnarik or Cobb).
Bushy is continuing to drone that we will be better served by iraq and afganistan becoming democracies. What he's glossing is that the citizenry of either place seems far more likely to elect for theocracy.
'We' may not like it but if that's the people's choice in that place then it is ineed democracy.
But then Bushy's a moron, no news there either.
Clinton did not create the .com boom, nor the layoffs which followed, have a look at Kondratiev long wave cycles if you want an answer.
Billionaire has grudge; billionaire has tantrum; billionaire buys place in campaign to unseat the guy he doesn't like; billionaire fades into background 'cause the 'organization' he spawned has no staying power.
Nader's an opportunistic asshat, personally I couldn't give a rat's ass what (legal) tactics are used to keep him off the ballots.
Now there's a fair chance this is gonna get marked as flamebate, so be it, however:
The libertarians I've known have uniformly been extraordinarily poor 'amabssadors' for thier professed political views. By which I mean pedantic, nominally idealistic but in reality so narrow-focused on their own solutions to the world's ills that they seem to have no conception that no they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of influencing any real world matters.
Hell even the Greens had the sense to run *Nader* who's at least well enough grounded in political reality to accomplish something. (Even if it was to effectively to sink their own political relevance in the US due to the anger of the rest of us who saw that campaign as a primary reason that we have the unimaginably incompetent GWB 'running' the country).
But anyhow you-all want interview questions, here goes:
How is it that libertarians (yes I'm generalizing based on the ones I know) able to take positions that are so damned far from the mainstream and try to go out and advocate them *and* (seemingly) thinking they're actually accomplishing something with all this?
And to clarify, I'm *no fan* myself of mainstream. My personal views are certainly in many cases a hell of a lot more 'radical' than any libertarian I've met. However I don't take every one of those opinions and try to convince everyone I know that I'm right and they're wrong. I.e. I strive when I go out and actually accomplish stuff to work toward my goals with some sense that others may have goals that differ from mine, and put my ideas out with that reality in mind.
We do live within a few blocks of a large housing project which used to have a fairly serious crime problem but even at the worst of times over many years the worst problems we ever saw was that you couldn't ever leave something obviously valuable e.g. a power tool out overnight.
I do take some precautions for my motorcycle, but as it's not an HD (which are first-rate theft magnets) a good size chain plus a lock through the front disk brake takes care of that problem.
Of course if you gotta have a 30k+ car or if you're in an area that's going through a rough time there may not be such easy solutions.
That not withstanding GWB's response to 'Iraq did not materially support or enable Al Quaeda in this' has been reported as 'Find me a connection to Iraq, it has to exist.'. Guess what, when you tell an agency what data / conclusions you want sure enough they can generate reports to match. That process isn't called intelligence, it's called making a culture of 'yes-men'.
So crap yourself, Bush as portrayed by his own nat'l security adviser went into office focused on some mythical big picture, and ignored actual data which ran counter to what he wanted to see.
*After* 9/11 Bush proposed *exactly* the same department of 'homeland security' in name, structure and purpose that has been proposed by rudd/hollings, and which our 'war president' had rejected 6 months prior to the attacks.
I also agreed with many of GWB's reasons for ousting Saddam Hussein, but not his unilateral/blindered approach, and certainly not his lying to the nation and the world about the reasons for starting this war.
We and our children will be paying the financial cost of this war for a decade, and the cost to the respect of our nation for many decades.
I think not. Yes Moore is bombastic, biased etc. His *facts* seem to be pretty well done, however he's certainly chosen to lay them out to best make the point he's trying to make. This is something that the 'free press' in our nation does all the time. usually when cornered they even admit it.
It's also as likely to bolster Bush's supporters with the degree of venom that Moore brings to his subject and protrayal.
Does any of that matter a lot to me? No, Once I saw GWB in his Tux say:
Coupled with this arrogant bastard's repeated ability to ignore his military's and CIA's and other nation's intelligence reports in favor of his own fscking agenda (basically "we need to eliminate SH from Iraq to stabilize the region") The decision that this moron needs to go was firmly cemented.
And as far as even-handed, I'll take even Moore's work over the 'swift boat veterans for truth(sic)' group, many of whom had nothing bad to say about Kerry, and some of whom earned medals in the same engagement that they now accuse him of lying about.
So Moore 'hurting the process' vs a group that has gotten advice from a (now resigned) administration (US-tax-paid-for) attorney ??!
No comparison. One is clearly using presentation to make a point, the other has clearly broken the rules in recieving material support from actual administration employees and is full of people who can't make up their minds whether they liked Kerry or didn't depending on what office he was running for at the time.
This I didn't know, that's pretty cool.
Absolutely not 'floating' that idea. While I think IBM's been one of the more 'open' companies out there, it's still the exception, not the rule.
Even the Greens came to realize how much they have lost *politically* due to Nader's spoiler action giving the 00 election to Bush. Whatever (probably little) sympathy Joe Average voter had for the Greens agenda fucking evaporated.
So this *moronic* thread is where we get to see the Libertarians come out in force -- however as they are an even smaller presence than the Greens. I'm not sure where you see a leverage point here, I'm no fan of our 2-party system but the only credible 3rd party candidate available in the 30 years I've been voting was John Anderson. The rest have pretty much been spoilers, particularly Perot and Nader who both managed to tip election results.
Do the math, your point just doesn't work out, whether you prefer Kerry over Bush or not.
They are not meaningfully comparable.
Layering services over dns has been a discussed topic in books / seminars for at least a decade already.
Yes gnu rm will accept 'file ... [OPTION]'.
However this syntax is non-portable, it's not POSIX and it doesn't work on any other Unix or BSD that I know of.
Yes in some singular instances of typos it can save your ass, however it will not do so in all instances.
*Linux* man pages are generally unmaintained is a true statement. Not so BSDs or the Unix vendors that I have dealt with, where the standard is that if the docs aren't done, the code isn't released.
so long as the other 2-4 bn are using linux | BSD.
- slackware?
- RedHat?
- Sorcerer?
- Lunar?
- Debian?
- Fedora?
- RHEL?
- How about bsd's?
- BSDI?
- OpenBSD?
- FreeBSD?
- DragonflyBSD?
- Unix[TM]?
- AT&T Sys5R2.5?
- AIX?
- HPUX?
- SunOs?
- Solaris?
- Digital Unix?
- Tru64 Unix?
Yes gentoo has it's points. Most of them are not things I value highly, ymmv.About the only 'modern' component of SFU as it stands today is gcc 3.3 (in sfu 3.0 it was gcc 2.x).
In an era when source development is highly linux-centric and Unix[TM]es now having to adapt to 'linux standards' to ease source code migration this seems like a serious case of 'too little too late'.
Sure, some interesting and useful stuff has been ported to SFU, but many things mormally taken for granted (e.g. emacs, ssh) are marked 'alpha' and even the packages hosted by the SFU team don't 'just build' from their own patched sources. *all of these sources* have already been ported to the native win32 API anyway.
Anyhow if it's not going to be a 'part' of ms's os until the '08 release of Longhorn, I can't see how it's going to be relevant.
Uh huh? and so you're here to prove that people who haven't can also be stupid? Rejoinding an ad-hominem with another ad-hominem isn't exactly the height of dialectic intercourse.
Nowhere do I see where p2p software is being made illegal. This bill is adding a specific class (companies hosting P2P networks *for profit*) for *civil* lawsuit.
No criminal statute here that I can see. Yes the bill is taking aim at p2p -- in expected ways, I dunno (or care-- I don't use p2p nets) if it's good law but the article here is seriously misstating content of the proposed law.
In chess as in most competition the first step to *losing* is assuming your opponent will make a mistake (including the mistake of not recognizing *your* mistakes).
'True Ai' exists. AI methods have been tried in chess and so far they simply do not work as well as brute force evaluation based on material gain.
That may change someday however the progress / work to date is no indicator that it's going to be any time soon.
On the other hand games between humans and computers have been considered 'interesting' by master-level players so if that's your criteria for 'True Ai' ...
Positional play
Algorithms / heuristics which have attempted to capture this 'intelligent' side of chess players' methodology have uniformly failed and the winning programs continue to primarily rely on simple evaluation of material.
This means that a master-level player has a strong advantage in offering a computer opponent some material in exchange say for superior control of the center of the board.
Advanced chess play has very little to do with 'intuition'. The specific tools that come to bear are:
exhaustive study of openings and endings
solid tactical evaluation (stupid mistakes still lose games)
positional evaluation
generally, for instance it's suicide to allow a game against a machine develop into an 'open' vs a 'closed' position. Tactical evaluation is less effective in closed positions; in open positions the machine's greater depth-search works extremely well.
Viruses which actively cloak their own signatures are quite old.
Virus toolkits used by kiddies might be considered as self-replicating (and it's arguable whether the users of these have higher IQ than the resultant code ;-))