Garbage is perhaps not the best way to put it. Obviously there are tradeoffs. The argument I think the gentleman was making is that the tradeoffs that RAMBUS made are particularly bad. Especially considering the cost and cooling requirements of personal computers, interleaved and hot are two very big problems.
Hypocrite. You didn't adopt because otherwise the kid would have ended up in an orphanage. You adopted because you wanted a kid. Otherwise why would you suffered the painful treatment?
Why nobody talks about adoption? Because it is generally a pretty bad idea. Good luck.
You are so fucking lame. First you come and bore us with your crummy Windows tools, then it turns out you don't need the fucking software anyway. Moron.
The point is that this has nothing or very little to do with medicine as practiced in the Hyppocratic tradition. In that tradition, medicine is about healing, and to refrain from doing that which might cause harm.
Increasingly, however, we see the Hyppocratic aid being replaced by a scientifically infused ethic which values experimentation at its core. This stupid artificial cunt, if even it is real, is just another example of that. Now the point is whether we want to drop the Hyppocratic oath, and admit that medicine is not just about healing, but about improvement and augmentation as well, which raises all the prickly issues of "race improvement", or not.
Those millions of kids die of poverty. If their parents would not be so fucking poor, those kids wouldn't have been born in the first place, because their parents would have been infertile and busy researching "breeding technology".
Why don't you adopt a couple of kids out of Somalia? Why should other people, who have every reason not to want a Somalian kid traumatized by war, need to adopt Somalian kids just because the Somalians take such rotten care of them, just so you can "get the planet" again?
Hi Jon. Have you ever heard of painting? Did you ever wonder where all those colors came from?
What about sculptures? Bronze? Marble? How do they do it, Jon? Do you know?
Perspective in painting? How old is that? And how after the invention of the book until people invention page numbers, Jon? Do you know? (It was eighty years, Jon).
This is all too typical. First you insult me, then you assert some kind of right to have children, then you try to pummel me into submission with horror stories of your plight. Suffice to say I am not impressed.
Meanwhile, most US states still require a court order before they will
disclose identifying information from adoption documents
(bastards.org/activism/access.htm,
www.calib.com/naic/pubs/l_acestb2.htm), and will happily let an adopted child die without informing the biological parents or vice versa (missingpersons.com/mailroom/archive35.html). Alternatively, they will flat out lie about it. Then you have the psychological profiling, which invariably paints the biological parents as mentally and/or emotionally unstable or worse (sasupport.healthyplace2.com/custom3.html), that is to say when it is not fabricated out of thin air completely (www.patrickcrusade.org/andreaparole.htm), without so much as a single meeting between the alleged psychological "expert" and the biological mother. We should also not forget alarming evidence suggesting that adopted children are several orders of magnitude more likely to suffer from violence and abuse than biologically related offspring (www.dominionpost.com/a/news/2000/03/13/000313k/do mestic), especially when the adoptive parents feel their kid is "not living up".
But I suppose all of this is lost on you. The selfrighteous way you dismiss people who reject black kids for adoption, then cheerily proceed to sing your own praises for having the guts to adopt a black kid -- it's a classic and I've seen it more often that you can imagine. Good luck.
All of this is utter bullshit. I challenge you to provide evidence for even a single one of these claims.
If every country had access to the same resources as any other country, then trade and capitalism are be impossible. In a world where there is no distinction between rich and poor people, there are only poor people.
You may be happy with your kid, but for your indulgence to be satisfied, the natural mother is deprived of her rights. In their insecurity, adoption couples often will not even allow the natural mother to come see her kid, a position that the state helps them to maintain by not giving out the address of the kid or the names of his "new" parents. Such is the cruelty that is needed to satisfy your luxury.
Let people lecture you on how their stuff works. Don't be afraid of too much detail, but don't put up with overobfuscation either. Understanding lies in being able to explain.
Re:Why I think Jon Katz articles are a Good Thing
on
Heart of the Net
·
· Score: 1
Okay, allow me to take you up on that. Given that we could settle on a definition and had access to relevant data. What good would it do to know where the "heart" of the Net is? What does that sentence even mean?
Re:Why I think Jon Katz articles are a Good Thing
on
Heart of the Net
·
· Score: 1
Hey, chum... We got together before Katz was here.
That aside. It is not me who is making a public fool out of Katz. For instance he could just stop writing and become a private fool.
The question is not whether you can "write.NET" using a functional language. The question is whether you can take your Lisp program, run it through a.NET-aware Lisp compiler, and end up with something useful (i.e. suffering only minimal loss of functionality and no more than acceptable loss of performance).
So there is some interesting technology behind.NET.
Why?
It solves problems. Let's assume it solves problems. Such as, you can write in different languages. Even use objects as objects (!) in different languages. To some extent. That is the impressive part.
There is also a virtual layer. It has been compared to the JVM. I am not going to compare it to the JVM. I am not even calling it a virtual machine. That is not to disparage the effort -- but.NET is much bigger than just a virtual machine. One could also convincingly argue that a virtual machine is not, ultimately, the most interesting part about efforts such as.NET.
Efforts such as.NET. What kind of efforts are there that are like.NET? What is.NET? Nobody seems to know, really.
It is good to see that the.NET APIs and interfaces are being picked up. This is most certainly where a lot of.NET value is. Perhaps even most of the value. Who knows? Of course there is a lot of geewhiz computer science in.NET that you could also point out as desirable. The Python and Eiffel crowds will know. But personally; I believe a good solid API is worth a lot of, um, computer science.
Just to indicate how broad.NET really is. There is something there to please everyone. It's "virtual", but in a comfortably ill-defined myriad of senses, and it's great computer science, but it also means business.
If it succeeds, it might almost bring Microsoft in line with the rest of the computing world (UNIX). That is, peer review, sane architecture, sane libraries.
Right. So what is wrong with GNOME that can't be fixed without first creating, then resorting to Mono? Well, we don't have all the language bindings that.NET would offer. We would get a uniform API across languages for many things. Well, actually of course we would get excellent integration for oft-used languages, and languishing thesis project kind of support for lesser used languages.
Which is pretty much the way it is now. If you want to do text, you use Perl. If you want to do anything else, you use C. If you want to get virtual and a headache, you use Java. If you want to do computer science, you use Python.
Does anybody really believe that this will be any different under.NET? And when? How long will it take before we even reach that point? Would that time not be better spent making GNOME even better than it already is? How about writing some more documentation? If writing hundred lines of documentation fixes 400 potential errors now, versus.NET fixing thousands of potential errors in two, three years time -- what constitutes the better investment in our freedom?
A phat car like the Mercedes 300SL, even though you may have altered it beyond recognition, is still after fifty years time a more than respectable vehicle.
Your average clear case modded PC, OTOH, will be worthless in ten years time.
So what you have is this huge contingent of young male hobbyists discovering computers (games, really), then deciding to soup up their gear, "just like" cars. They just lack the historical perspective to see that their creations, unlike those of car enthusiasts, have virtually no lasting value whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
People who talk about reality as if it is ours or theirs are unrealistic.
Garbage is perhaps not the best way to put it. Obviously there are tradeoffs. The argument I think the gentleman was making is that the tradeoffs that RAMBUS made are particularly bad. Especially considering the cost and cooling requirements of personal computers, interleaved and hot are two very big problems.
It occurs to me as if you would rather have the government than people like Mr. Bemer in control.
Why nobody talks about adoption? Because it is generally a pretty bad idea. Good luck.
As I fold my hands around your neck, ever so gently, ever so gently
What a load of crock.
You are so fucking lame. First you come and bore us with your crummy Windows tools, then it turns out you don't need the fucking software anyway. Moron.
Bloated? SuSE 7.3 is 5.5 GB total. It's slower than Windows, too.
Increasingly, however, we see the Hyppocratic aid being replaced by a scientifically infused ethic which values experimentation at its core. This stupid artificial cunt, if even it is real, is just another example of that. Now the point is whether we want to drop the Hyppocratic oath, and admit that medicine is not just about healing, but about improvement and augmentation as well, which raises all the prickly issues of "race improvement", or not.
Why don't you adopt a couple of kids out of Somalia? Why should other people, who have every reason not to want a Somalian kid traumatized by war, need to adopt Somalian kids just because the Somalians take such rotten care of them, just so you can "get the planet" again?
What about sculptures? Bronze? Marble? How do they do it, Jon? Do you know?
Perspective in painting? How old is that? And how after the invention of the book until people invention page numbers, Jon? Do you know? (It was eighty years, Jon).
Meanwhile, most US states still require a court order before they will disclose identifying information from adoption documents (bastards.org/activism/access.htm, www.calib.com/naic/pubs/l_acestb2.htm), and will happily let an adopted child die without informing the biological parents or vice versa (missingpersons.com/mailroom/archive35.html). Alternatively, they will flat out lie about it. Then you have the psychological profiling, which invariably paints the biological parents as mentally and/or emotionally unstable or worse (sasupport.healthyplace2.com/custom3.html), that is to say when it is not fabricated out of thin air completely (www.patrickcrusade.org/andreaparole.htm), without so much as a single meeting between the alleged psychological "expert" and the biological mother. We should also not forget alarming evidence suggesting that adopted children are several orders of magnitude more likely to suffer from violence and abuse than biologically related offspring (www.dominionpost.com/a/news/2000/03/13/000313k/do mestic), especially when the adoptive parents feel their kid is "not living up".
But I suppose all of this is lost on you. The selfrighteous way you dismiss people who reject black kids for adoption, then cheerily proceed to sing your own praises for having the guts to adopt a black kid -- it's a classic and I've seen it more often that you can imagine. Good luck.
If every country had access to the same resources as any other country, then trade and capitalism are be impossible. In a world where there is no distinction between rich and poor people, there are only poor people.
You may be happy with your kid, but for your indulgence to be satisfied, the natural mother is deprived of her rights. In their insecurity, adoption couples often will not even allow the natural mother to come see her kid, a position that the state helps them to maintain by not giving out the address of the kid or the names of his "new" parents. Such is the cruelty that is needed to satisfy your luxury.
Heh. That's like meeting your wife in the whorehouse.
This is a wonderful story. Freedom to read, indeed.
Let people lecture you on how their stuff works. Don't be afraid of too much detail, but don't put up with overobfuscation either. Understanding lies in being able to explain.
Okay, allow me to take you up on that. Given that we could settle on a definition and had access to relevant data. What good would it do to know where the "heart" of the Net is? What does that sentence even mean?
That aside. It is not me who is making a public fool out of Katz. For instance he could just stop writing and become a private fool.
hey there you here too huh...nev m'nd
The question is not whether you can "write .NET" using a functional language. The question is whether you can take your Lisp program, run it through a .NET-aware Lisp compiler, and end up with something useful (i.e. suffering only minimal loss of functionality and no more than acceptable loss of performance).
Why?
It solves problems. Let's assume it solves problems. Such as, you can write in different languages. Even use objects as objects (!) in different languages. To some extent. That is the impressive part.
There is also a virtual layer. It has been compared to the JVM. I am not going to compare it to the JVM. I am not even calling it a virtual machine. That is not to disparage the effort -- but .NET is much bigger than just a virtual machine. One could also convincingly argue that a virtual machine is not, ultimately, the most interesting part about efforts such as .NET.
Efforts such as .NET. What kind of efforts are there that are like .NET? What is .NET? Nobody seems to know, really.
It is good to see that the .NET APIs and interfaces are being picked up. This is most certainly where a lot of .NET value is. Perhaps even most of the value. Who knows? Of course there is a lot of geewhiz computer science in .NET that you could also point out as desirable. The Python and Eiffel crowds will know. But personally; I believe a good solid API is worth a lot of, um, computer science.
Just to indicate how broad .NET really is. There is something there to please everyone. It's "virtual", but in a comfortably ill-defined myriad of senses, and it's great computer science, but it also means business.
If it succeeds, it might almost bring Microsoft in line with the rest of the computing world (UNIX). That is, peer review, sane architecture, sane libraries.
Right. So what is wrong with GNOME that can't be fixed without first creating, then resorting to Mono? Well, we don't have all the language bindings that .NET would offer. We would get a uniform API across languages for many things. Well, actually of course we would get excellent integration for oft-used languages, and languishing thesis project kind of support for lesser used languages.
Which is pretty much the way it is now. If you want to do text, you use Perl. If you want to do anything else, you use C. If you want to get virtual and a headache, you use Java. If you want to do computer science, you use Python.
Does anybody really believe that this will be any different under .NET? And when? How long will it take before we even reach that point? Would that time not be better spent making GNOME even better than it already is? How about writing some more documentation? If writing hundred lines of documentation fixes 400 potential errors now, versus .NET fixing thousands of potential errors in two, three years time -- what constitutes the better investment in our freedom?
Oops. sorry
Your average clear case modded PC, OTOH, will be worthless in ten years time.
So what you have is this huge contingent of young male hobbyists discovering computers (games, really), then deciding to soup up their gear, "just like" cars. They just lack the historical perspective to see that their creations, unlike those of car enthusiasts, have virtually no lasting value whatsoever.
I don't like it either. Some of it is funny. But most of it is just hard work.