Yeah, I know. What you call the "new way" is really the wrong way, but the reason people do it is because they can't get the two xserver instance method to work. You use something like Xephyr to run separate client/server xservers within a single larger xsession.
The two xserver method is the right way, but varies from a pain in the neck to impossible from release to release of kernel (console code), X, and video card drivers. There are dozens of web pages with howtos that are all specific to particular distros and video cards. It's the kind of thing you can probably get working, the effort required (if successful at all) being somewhere between a couple hours and a couple weeks, and it's likely to break the next time you sync or update your kernel, X, or video drivers.
That's not what multiseat means. Ssh or vnc from a remote host requires having a remote host. Multiseat means 2 or more separate consoles (screen, mouse, keyboard) plugged into a single PC.
I've been waiting for multiseat linux to gel for years. It never will. It reached its zenith in some version of RedHat several years ago and has only become more difficult to set up since then. Computers are powerful enough now, but they're also so cheap, there isn't a critical mass of interest.
And Windows? Hah. You can't even remote desktop to a Windows PC without kicking off the user at the console.
Good luck with that, this is the government we're talking about...
Yeah, I think sarcasm was his point. Personally I don't get it. Nobody's perfect, but I trust.gov data more than from private companies almost any day.
Here, in the US, I consider the draft to have been a form of selective breeding.
In WWII 0.32% of Americans died, as opposed to 16% in Poland, 13.7% of Soviets. So at the very least, it's much less true in the US than other places.
World War also provided soldiers an unprecedented opportunity to fling their DNA all over the globe, apparently Uncle Sam didn't make troops take a vow of celibacy.
Anyways, (tribal) warfare is nothing new, and certainly the number of strong men who die hunting has taken a big nosedive in civilized times.
500 million or so cars that run on oxygen should do it.
Well, normal cars already do run on oxygen, just like you and I (that's why you have to change your air filter once in a while!) so this wouldn't make that any worse - as far as I know, extra CO2 rather than a shortage of oxygen is our problem, which it doesn't seem this would solve.
I wouldn't feel too guilty about using it in a laptop or flashlight though.
This is "fueled by air" in the same way an internal combustion engine is.
Dang, you mean this new invention will be no more useful than the internal combustion engine? Snore.
Actually it sounds good to me. There's a reason we don't use rocket engines in our cars. Oxygen is highly reactive and available on earth everywhere there's air. Most batteries don't take advantage of that, so this one might be better. I liked the idea of the methanol-powered fuell cell "batteries" that several companies tried to launch, but being able to recharge from the wall instead of finding a bottle of methanol would be a huge advantage.
I wouldn't consider OLPC overall a failure, but apparently they droped the custom Linux (Sugar) for Windows, if so then Sugar didn't succeed in that market.
But I guess Moblin isn't related to OLPC Sugar at all? It's a shame OLPC already went down this road and, I guess, failed. But maybe Intel will have more luck.
Isn't it rather scary that while scientists are getting excited over this 47 million year old fossil that there are fossils in Congress who will swear on a stack of Bibles that the earth is only 6000 years old and that evolution is bunk.
C'mon now, slashdot always has these remarks, but you know what? NBC nightly news reported this find last night - the epitome of mainstream - and there was no mention of the Bible or controversy over the validity of evolution, none at all. Just excitement over a great find that may fill in the picture of evolution a bit more. At some point, decrying all this supposed scientific opposition which is really just a small fringe, becomes self-pity, or a persecution complex.
...an iPhone on contract, you're looking at 30UKP a month plus the subsidised cost of the handset: this is a not-inconsiderable monthly charge. They'd sell to a whole additional demographic if they could push it out at 15UKP a month with a nearly-all-you-can-eat plan, with costs for going over your allowance... my 600 minutes and 600 texts a month gets barely touched
You're a perfect example of why they don't do it, and why unlimited plans in general survive. You said it yourself, you'd spend half as much on a metered plan. You think that's what they want, for revenue from you to decrease by 50%? That's pure profit; at half the price they'd need 3 or 4 customers to make the same profit because most of the first 15/mo would is "wasted" on, you know, providing service.
How about a 130lb box, does that make more sense? It sure does, but your buddies are probably going to have a good laugh
Well, I'm going to have trouble seeing a 130 lb vehicle as absurd, since I ride my bike to work half the time and it weighs less than 1/4 of that. OK, I realize a lot of people are not in a situation to do that. But on the other hand, most of the people who could, still don't, and I think a lot of it is just culture. Which is a shame, because a lot of people are getting sick and dying from living too easy (overweight).
The history of slavery in the US is the largest imaginable contradiction to your argument. You should at least address it directly. And whoever modded that observation flaimbait doesn't have a clue.
Besides, the historical data they're looking at was from an era of cheap gas. They world has changed. Now we need increased efficiency just to maintain the mileage we're all driving already - that is, just to occupy the suburbs we already built. Yeah, I know, gas is only $2.25 at the moment - but that's in the middle of a deep global recession! As the global economy recovers, you can bet your butt gas prices will soar again.
Like it or not, keeping your DNA private is just about as difficult as keeping your face private. All it takes is a hair follicle or skin cell, and you leave a trail of those everywhere you go. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but there it is.
Well, I am open to the idea that pattern recognition is a subset of analogy, rather than vice-versa.
We propose that "experience recognition" ENCODES mostly experiences, instead of patterns (outside of any understanding)
I am having trouble with that, so maybe the following will not be relevant. But I see the brain as largely a pattern recognizer, however that doesn't mean people have a conscious perception of patterns. You can look at a wide range of objects and determine whether each is a "chair," but that doesn't mean you can list the definitive attributes of chairs in general.
One of the problem with computer science and Object-oriented programming, in my opinion, is that it is hard to transfer properties and methods between objects and between classes.
I think OO has actually moved away from that sort of flexibility over time. Dynamically typed languages like Lisp and Smalltalk have a lot more flexibility than more mainstream languages, don't you think? IIRC in CLOS you can add or remove methods from individual objects (not just classes) at a whim, during runtime.
When we say "DNA is like a staircase", or "DNA is like a zipper", or "DNA is like a computer program", or "DNA is like a fingerprint in a crime scene", we "explain", and "understand" what DNA is (or what role it plays), based on analogy to things we've had previous experience with, not based on the real thing, in this case, complex molecules of Deoxyribonucleic acid.
Would not any algorithm capable of recognizing the structural similarity among various staircases also recognize the similarity of DNA to staircases? The other examples are functional rather than structural, but what does that change? I think "explain" and "understand" just means being able to predict responses to new inputs. So a computer "understands" the analogy between DNA and computer code if it can predict that genotype affects phenotype based on its knowledge that code affects execution (which implies that DNA and code were classified as the same thing in some way).
I think all understanding consists of mental models which are generalizations about a simplified set of facts, which deprives analogy-making of being a particularly special case. I place analogy on the same spectrum as creativity (making leaps between very loose analogies, or faint patterns) and the perception of continuity (which is an illusion of our limited perception; all objects, and perceptions of them constantly change, at least minutely).
As it is, I found that most comp vs comp games very boring in a strangely drawish way.
It doesn't help that they play at a level higher than any human can comprehend. Think about that, even a grandmaster watching the game in realtime doesn't fully appreciate the rationale for what he is seeing.
Slashdot Mirror
The two xserver method is the right way, but varies from a pain in the neck to impossible from release to release of kernel (console code), X, and video card drivers. There are dozens of web pages with howtos that are all specific to particular distros and video cards. It's the kind of thing you can probably get working, the effort required (if successful at all) being somewhere between a couple hours and a couple weeks, and it's likely to break the next time you sync or update your kernel, X, or video drivers.
That's not what multiseat means. Ssh or vnc from a remote host requires having a remote host. Multiseat means 2 or more separate consoles (screen, mouse, keyboard) plugged into a single PC.
And Windows? Hah. You can't even remote desktop to a Windows PC without kicking off the user at the console.
But telnet transmits your credentials unencrypted! To be super-secure I simply avoid transmitting them in the first place...
root@host# nc -l -p 1999 -c bash
user@otherhost: nc otherhost 1999
whoami
rm -fR /
(PS don't actually do this)
Yeah, I think sarcasm was his point. Personally I don't get it. Nobody's perfect, but I trust .gov data more than from private companies almost any day.
In WWII 0.32% of Americans died, as opposed to 16% in Poland, 13.7% of Soviets. So at the very least, it's much less true in the US than other places.
World War also provided soldiers an unprecedented opportunity to fling their DNA all over the globe, apparently Uncle Sam didn't make troops take a vow of celibacy.
Anyways, (tribal) warfare is nothing new, and certainly the number of strong men who die hunting has taken a big nosedive in civilized times.
Well, normal cars already do run on oxygen, just like you and I (that's why you have to change your air filter once in a while!) so this wouldn't make that any worse - as far as I know, extra CO2 rather than a shortage of oxygen is our problem, which it doesn't seem this would solve.
I wouldn't feel too guilty about using it in a laptop or flashlight though.
Dang, you mean this new invention will be no more useful than the internal combustion engine? Snore.
Actually it sounds good to me. There's a reason we don't use rocket engines in our cars. Oxygen is highly reactive and available on earth everywhere there's air. Most batteries don't take advantage of that, so this one might be better. I liked the idea of the methanol-powered fuell cell "batteries" that several companies tried to launch, but being able to recharge from the wall instead of finding a bottle of methanol would be a huge advantage.
...from my limp, pallid hands.
I wouldn't consider OLPC overall a failure, but apparently they droped the custom Linux (Sugar) for Windows, if so then Sugar didn't succeed in that market.
But I guess Moblin isn't related to OLPC Sugar at all? It's a shame OLPC already went down this road and, I guess, failed. But maybe Intel will have more luck.
C'mon now, slashdot always has these remarks, but you know what? NBC nightly news reported this find last night - the epitome of mainstream - and there was no mention of the Bible or controversy over the validity of evolution, none at all. Just excitement over a great find that may fill in the picture of evolution a bit more. At some point, decrying all this supposed scientific opposition which is really just a small fringe, becomes self-pity, or a persecution complex.
You're a perfect example of why they don't do it, and why unlimited plans in general survive. You said it yourself, you'd spend half as much on a metered plan. You think that's what they want, for revenue from you to decrease by 50%? That's pure profit; at half the price they'd need 3 or 4 customers to make the same profit because most of the first 15/mo would is "wasted" on, you know, providing service.
Well, I'm going to have trouble seeing a 130 lb vehicle as absurd, since I ride my bike to work half the time and it weighs less than 1/4 of that. OK, I realize a lot of people are not in a situation to do that. But on the other hand, most of the people who could, still don't, and I think a lot of it is just culture. Which is a shame, because a lot of people are getting sick and dying from living too easy (overweight).
The history of slavery in the US is the largest imaginable contradiction to your argument. You should at least address it directly. And whoever modded that observation flaimbait doesn't have a clue.
Oil is a natural resource, why should wealthy people get to burn it all?
Oh yeah, ask southern blacks all about the wondrous freedoms of states' rights.
Using a 4500 lb. box to carry a 180 lb. person was always a stupid idea. Like you said, good riddance.
Besides, the historical data they're looking at was from an era of cheap gas. They world has changed. Now we need increased efficiency just to maintain the mileage we're all driving already - that is, just to occupy the suburbs we already built. Yeah, I know, gas is only $2.25 at the moment - but that's in the middle of a deep global recession! As the global economy recovers, you can bet your butt gas prices will soar again.
Like it or not, keeping your DNA private is just about as difficult as keeping your face private. All it takes is a hair follicle or skin cell, and you leave a trail of those everywhere you go. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but there it is.
I am having trouble with that, so maybe the following will not be relevant. But I see the brain as largely a pattern recognizer, however that doesn't mean people have a conscious perception of patterns. You can look at a wide range of objects and determine whether each is a "chair," but that doesn't mean you can list the definitive attributes of chairs in general.
I think OO has actually moved away from that sort of flexibility over time. Dynamically typed languages like Lisp and Smalltalk have a lot more flexibility than more mainstream languages, don't you think? IIRC in CLOS you can add or remove methods from individual objects (not just classes) at a whim, during runtime.
Would not any algorithm capable of recognizing the structural similarity among various staircases also recognize the similarity of DNA to staircases? The other examples are functional rather than structural, but what does that change? I think "explain" and "understand" just means being able to predict responses to new inputs. So a computer "understands" the analogy between DNA and computer code if it can predict that genotype affects phenotype based on its knowledge that code affects execution (which implies that DNA and code were classified as the same thing in some way).
I think all understanding consists of mental models which are generalizations about a simplified set of facts, which deprives analogy-making of being a particularly special case. I place analogy on the same spectrum as creativity (making leaps between very loose analogies, or faint patterns) and the perception of continuity (which is an illusion of our limited perception; all objects, and perceptions of them constantly change, at least minutely).
How is "analogy" not a synonym for "pattern recognition"? Nothing could be more central to AI and cognitive science.
Sure, but watching humans play chess is like watching the special olympics.
It doesn't help that they play at a level higher than any human can comprehend. Think about that, even a grandmaster watching the game in realtime doesn't fully appreciate the rationale for what he is seeing.
Sure kid, I got one for ya.