A sophisticated way of relating to others?
on
More on JSF Laser System
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
For some people, this is an acceptable way to relate to other people. If you
don't like other people, just kill them. Preferably from a long way away.
It's profitable, too, for a small number of people, because the weapons are
secret and therefore the profits can be kept secret.
It's an adult video game. Except that you don't get to play. You, if you are
an American taxpayer, only get to pay.
There are a lot of people who would like to kill other people if it is free
and they don't have to go to prison. It's a kind of mental illness. For more
about this, see What should be the
Response to Violence?
Violence tends to cause other violence. Mostly hidden elements of the U.S.
government are causing the U.S. to be a target of violence. For example, the
U.S. government (taxpayers) spend more than $900 every year for every
man, woman, and child in Israel so that Israelis can buy U.S.-made weapons to
kill Arabs. It's a way of transferring money from the taxpayers to the weapons
makers. It seems likely that this will result in another holocaust; I doubt
the Arabs are kidding when they say they will never surrender.
Every day in the U.S., it is possible to see American leaders on television
calmly discussing the killing of other people. Of course, they have come to
believe that they will never be the target.
I accidentally posted this anonymously before, so here it is now, with my name
on it.
The pinouts of semiconductor devices are protected with diodes. There is no problem with electric discharge, as long as you don't zap an integrated circuit with a half-inch long spark.
The original poster is correct. Something has gone wrong somewhere in the Slashdot story, which is sensationalistic, while the Scientific American story is not. Remember that the Slashdot editors are knowledgeable about computers, but not electronics.
It is quite easy to protect chips from overvoltage. The Sci Am story is merely providing information.
As the Scientific American story says, field emission devices (very, very small spark gaps) will protect even the highest-speed transistors.
That's interesting. Intel's marketing is terrible. I think there are a lot of good things that could be said, but no one is saying them so that people in the industry be aware.
1. Yes, but it doesn't always work. Apparently it fails when started from an instance of the command.com command processor. The behavior is different from Windows 98 SE, where it works as advertised.
2. True.
3. Okay, I've made that section clearer by including these sentences at the beginning: "If you don't have enough technical knowledge to evaluate the thoughts presented here, do not simply believe the author of this article. Find someone with technical knowledge who can help you." The new version is live now; anyone re-visiting the article should press Reload in their browser so that they don't see the version in their browser cache instead of the one on the web.
4. You're right. That section needs to be re-written. The point is valid, however. There is an amazing depth of dislike of Microsoft.
At the introduction of Windows 95, there was a big discussion of this. A
computer magazine columnist persuaded Microsoft to double the
allocation of resources, from 64k to 128k.
So that it will seem less bothersome, I changed the wording to "Few people
realize that Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME (all closely related to
each other) were designed in such a way that it was inevitable that they would
crash."
You are right, the language was bad. The facts are good.
Would you care to mention something else that should be corrected?
The press release says, "NTFS partitions are now supported (read-only)."
When they can supply NTFS read-write, Mandrake could be used to repair problems with Windows XP. (Windows XP cannot copy some of its own files, even if the files you are trying to copy are not on the partition from which the system was booted. No, I am not kidding.) See Windows XP Shows the
Direction Microsoft is Going. if you don't believe me. The third-party tools for read-write to NTFS are expensive, or have shortcomings.
Another thought: Marketing is becoming the limiting factor in the acceptance of Linux. The product itself is very impressive. Someone has to educate all those not technically knowledgeable enough to read Slashdot.
The Worldwide Association of Gnus (WAG) asks that the word Gnu should not be used unless it refers to the animal Gnu. When referring to something else, WAG suggests "big hairy animal".
The Magician's Council says that Mandrake should be used only when referring to a certified magician. "Illusionist" should be used instead.
Therefore this release should be called "Big Hairy Animal/Illusionist" to keep everyone happy.
Note that at the bottom of the Google news page it says, "This page was generated entirely by computer algorithms without human editors. No humans were harmed or even used in the creation of this page."
It's the law: If you own a copy, you, or anyone, can do anything you like with that copy. You could edit Sylvester Stallone from a movie and put in yourself. You cannot do a public performance of an altered work without permission, but you can do anything you like that does not involve a performance.
Robert Redford and Steven Spielberg complain. However, if they didn't make such poor quality films, this would not be an issue. I don't think that cutting something from their films will improve them much, but if people want that, I'm sympathetic to their wanting something that, while it is still not good, is less objectionable.
This is a fact: Many older people are so annoyed by the fake sentiments and foolish thinking of movies that they don't watch them. Most movie goers are young.
Most films made in the U.S. show losers. Since I'm (mostly) successful, I don't identify with the characters in the films.
The computer industry has a scam that they use with unsuspecting executives.
It is the "security" scam. The industry ran this scam against the DVD
consortium. In actuality, there was no security, but the computer industry
managed to convince the DVD group that there was. The deception was, and is,
immensely profitable for some hardware manufacturers. But, of course, a
16-year-old released a method of breaking the encryption (with help from more
knowledgeable people.)
More recently, Microsoft tried to run the security scam against the entire
world. The Passport scheme was working well in the sense that only a small
percentage of people realized that it was a scam. But the U. S. government's
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) told Microsoft to stop in its August 8, 2002
order: Microsoft
Settles FTC Charges Alleging False Security and Privacy Promises
Microsoft has run the security scam against its corporate customers. In
actuality, the (local) security of Windows 2000 and Windows XP is very
limited; if corporate customers realized this, they might not invest in these
operating systems. See the section "Windows XP provides no local
security" in the article Windows XP Shows the
Direction Microsoft is Going.
You and others in your comments are questioning the HDTV security scam. You
are saying, "Hey, wait a minute. Isn't this, and this, and this wrong with
the scheme?"
Now Microsoft and Intel and AMD are running the scam with a thing called
Palladium. With Microsoft's Palladium, we will, supposedly, have security in
an inherently insecure operating system. Palladium's security certificate
system is like putting all the world's money in one bank. If someone, a
disloyal employee perhaps, breaks into that bank, the entire security is lost,
and everyone who spent millions trusting that system will both lose, and have
to continue with the system, just like with DVD's.
Palladium prevents security vulnerability the way the U.S. government's "War
on Drugs" prevents illegal drug use. In actuality, the real purpose of the
"War on Drugs" is to prevent competition by small illegal drug manufacturers,
which would lower the price. The big manufacturers are selling more drugs now
than before the "War on Drugs", and at artificially high prices.
Slashdot Mirror
For some people, this is an acceptable way to relate to other people. If you don't like other people, just kill them. Preferably from a long way away.
It's profitable, too, for a small number of people, because the weapons are secret and therefore the profits can be kept secret.
It's an adult video game. Except that you don't get to play. You, if you are an American taxpayer, only get to pay.
There are a lot of people who would like to kill other people if it is free and they don't have to go to prison. It's a kind of mental illness. For more about this, see What should be the Response to Violence?
Violence tends to cause other violence. Mostly hidden elements of the U.S. government are causing the U.S. to be a target of violence. For example, the U.S. government (taxpayers) spend more than $900 every year for every man, woman, and child in Israel so that Israelis can buy U.S.-made weapons to kill Arabs. It's a way of transferring money from the taxpayers to the weapons makers. It seems likely that this will result in another holocaust; I doubt the Arabs are kidding when they say they will never surrender.
Every day in the U.S., it is possible to see American leaders on television calmly discussing the killing of other people. Of course, they have come to believe that they will never be the target.
I accidentally posted this anonymously before, so here it is now, with my name on it.
Hey, you know that, but many people don't. Someone from Wales complained, so I enumerated all the countries.
The pinouts of semiconductor devices are protected with diodes. There is no problem with electric discharge, as long as you don't zap an integrated circuit with a half-inch long spark.
The original poster is correct. Something has gone wrong somewhere in the Slashdot story, which is sensationalistic, while the Scientific American story is not. Remember that the Slashdot editors are knowledgeable about computers, but not electronics.
It is quite easy to protect chips from overvoltage. The Sci Am story is merely providing information.
As the Scientific American story says, field emission devices (very, very small spark gaps) will protect even the highest-speed transistors.
That's interesting. Intel's marketing is terrible. I think there are a lot of good things that could be said, but no one is saying them so that people in the industry be aware.
1. Yes, but it doesn't always work. Apparently it fails when started from an instance of the command.com command processor. The behavior is different from Windows 98 SE, where it works as advertised.
2. True.
3. Okay, I've made that section clearer by including these sentences at the beginning: "If you don't have enough technical knowledge to evaluate the thoughts presented here, do not simply believe the author of this article. Find someone with technical knowledge who can help you." The new version is live now; anyone re-visiting the article should press Reload in their browser so that they don't see the version in their browser cache instead of the one on the web.
4. You're right. That section needs to be re-written. The point is valid, however. There is an amazing depth of dislike of Microsoft.
At the introduction of Windows 95, there was a big discussion of this. A computer magazine columnist persuaded Microsoft to double the allocation of resources, from 64k to 128k.
So that it will seem less bothersome, I changed the wording to "Few people realize that Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME (all closely related to each other) were designed in such a way that it was inevitable that they would crash."
You are right, the language was bad. The facts are good.
Would you care to mention something else that should be corrected?
If you visit the article again, press Reload on your browser so that you don't see the old version: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
Don't worry. One of the designers of the new Pentium IV told me that they will definitely release a Pentium IV of 5 GHz or more.
Would you care to mention one way in which the article is wrong?
The press release says, "NTFS partitions are now supported (read-only)."
When they can supply NTFS read-write, Mandrake could be used to repair problems with Windows XP. (Windows XP cannot copy some of its own files, even if the files you are trying to copy are not on the partition from which the system was booted. No, I am not kidding.) See Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. if you don't believe me. The third-party tools for read-write to NTFS are expensive, or have shortcomings.
Another thought: Marketing is becoming the limiting factor in the acceptance of Linux. The product itself is very impressive. Someone has to educate all those not technically knowledgeable enough to read Slashdot.
You are probably right. However, it wouldn't be difficult to have a U.S. server. Both Mandrake and RedHat need better marketing.
The Worldwide Association of Gnus (WAG) asks that the word Gnu should not be used unless it refers to the animal Gnu. When referring to something else, WAG suggests "big hairy animal".
The Magician's Council says that Mandrake should be used only when referring to a certified magician. "Illusionist" should be used instead.
Therefore this release should be called "Big Hairy Animal/Illusionist" to keep everyone happy.
If Mandrake is so good with computer systems, why are both links slashdotted?
I like Mandrake, but... it makes me think.
Note that at the bottom of the Google news page it says, "This page was generated entirely by computer algorithms without human editors. No humans were harmed or even used in the creation of this page."
You forgot to provide a link for hamster upgrades. I hope they are downloadable. Can an upgraded hamster pull a bulldozer out of a muddy hole?
The linked example is quite expensive. It is better to buy an empty firewire enclosure and put a 120GB WD drive in it.
In the past, Passport has been shown to have zero security. See the Wired News article, Stealing MS Passport's Wallet.
On August 8, 2002, the U.S. Government's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered Microsoft to stop lying about its Passport service. The FTC's order is titled Microsoft Settles FTC Charges Alleging False Security and Privacy Promises.
From: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
As background material, consider Microsoft in general: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
"Perl does a lot of things that would be hard to shoehorn into C..."
That's interesting. Could you give me some examples?
Excellent point.
The moderator didn't agree, and used a moderation point to show displeasure. This is a corruption of the moderation system.
It's the law: If you own a copy, you, or anyone, can do anything you like with that copy. You could edit Sylvester Stallone from a movie and put in yourself. You cannot do a public performance of an altered work without permission, but you can do anything you like that does not involve a performance.
Robert Redford and Steven Spielberg complain. However, if they didn't make such poor quality films, this would not be an issue. I don't think that cutting something from their films will improve them much, but if people want that, I'm sympathetic to their wanting something that, while it is still not good, is less objectionable.
This is a fact: Many older people are so annoyed by the fake sentiments and foolish thinking of movies that they don't watch them. Most movie goers are young.
Most films made in the U.S. show losers. Since I'm (mostly) successful, I don't identify with the characters in the films.
Interesting.
The computer industry has a scam that they use with unsuspecting executives. It is the "security" scam. The industry ran this scam against the DVD consortium. In actuality, there was no security, but the computer industry managed to convince the DVD group that there was. The deception was, and is, immensely profitable for some hardware manufacturers. But, of course, a 16-year-old released a method of breaking the encryption (with help from more knowledgeable people.)
More recently, Microsoft tried to run the security scam against the entire world. The Passport scheme was working well in the sense that only a small percentage of people realized that it was a scam. But the U. S. government's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) told Microsoft to stop in its August 8, 2002 order: Microsoft Settles FTC Charges Alleging False Security and Privacy Promises
Microsoft has run the security scam against its corporate customers. In actuality, the (local) security of Windows 2000 and Windows XP is very limited; if corporate customers realized this, they might not invest in these operating systems. See the section "Windows XP provides no local security" in the article Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
You and others in your comments are questioning the HDTV security scam. You are saying, "Hey, wait a minute. Isn't this, and this, and this wrong with the scheme?"
Now Microsoft and Intel and AMD are running the scam with a thing called Palladium. With Microsoft's Palladium, we will, supposedly, have security in an inherently insecure operating system. Palladium's security certificate system is like putting all the world's money in one bank. If someone, a disloyal employee perhaps, breaks into that bank, the entire security is lost, and everyone who spent millions trusting that system will both lose, and have to continue with the system, just like with DVD's.
Palladium prevents security vulnerability the way the U.S. government's "War on Drugs" prevents illegal drug use. In actuality, the real purpose of the "War on Drugs" is to prevent competition by small illegal drug manufacturers, which would lower the price. The big manufacturers are selling more drugs now than before the "War on Drugs", and at artificially high prices.
Caution: MAJOR conflict of interest. The writer is an anti-virus consultant who will lose money if there is an open source alternative.
I stand by what I said.