Can't say I know any vegetarians who insist on eating faux meat - but why'd that be problem? It is, after all, possible to enjoy the taste of meat but not the methods of its "production". The point of veg(etari)anism, I thought, was to avoid the abuse/slaughter of animals - not to avoid anything vaguely resembling meat.
Also, I suspect more people would become vegetarians (at least part-time) if artificial meat products were both tasty and affordable. Such a non-heroic act of non-abstinency may not lift anyone onto some moral high horse, but the animals probably couldn't care less (well, I suppose most of them wouldn't be born in the first place if nobody wanted to kill and eat them).
Oh, yes. I liked the "gloat messages" better than some of the games - I enjoyed the messages these (presumed) masked avenger types passed between each other. You can't not know the art form that became of them...?
Okay, I've had enough fun digging these up to forget all about Lemon and My apologies if all this is old hat to you (this being slashdot etc. blah blah)
I rarely/never seem to find OSS apps blocked, whereas I run into troubles with ALSA (specifically with Amarok and Kaffeine using the Xine backend, and on occasion Audacity):
Firefox runs some random Flash thingie
I start Amarok (ALSA): Xine could not initialise any audio drivers
I switch Amarok to PulseAudo: device is busy
I switch Amarok to OSS (or just keep it on autodetect) - now it works
I start jackd using ALSA - also works?
There's never really anything that doesn't work (well, Doom 3...) but I can't say the process is at all obvious to me...
(I used to use a dmix- and dsnoop-providing.asoundrc, but deleting it didn't seem to make much of a difference lately... I guess ALSA changed)
The nvidia-settings tool wrote me a Twinview xorg.conf that wasn't even half the size of the one I'd been lugging around from distro to distro, and it worked; just had to add some single-screen metamodes for fullscreen games...
It took me forever just to figure out that most of the commonly mentioned problems weren't my problems and that an arcane.asoundrc setup comprising dmix, dsnoop and rate conversion plugins ("slaves"?) was the answer to getting playback and capture working - and I'm still puzzled with regard to the roughly 10 devices I find listed in the Audacity preferences, none of which really work, or as to why upstanding applications like Kaffeine or Amarok work better when told to use OSS (emulation) instead of ALSA proper...
Finally I decided to buy a modern, super-supported "real" soundcard - and while it played sound just fine, I couldn't get it to record anything at all. Back to store.
I don't want to blame the developers; they probably don't get a lot of support from the manufacturers. I'm no Linux expert (obviously) so if my time weren't worthless and if I didn't basically enjoy Linux I might've given up; the amount of terminology to sort through before you know what anything's actually good for is staggering (LADSPA JACK ALSA OSS Portaudio GST ESD aRts...) It's working now, but I hope I won't have to do this again on another computer any time soon.
Installing software is the best part of using Linux to me, or rather of using Debian-based Linuxes though other popular distributions are similar.
Ubuntu example:
Run synaptic (or kpackage or adept or whatthefuckever, but synaptic seems easiest to me). If this is your first time running synaptic, you may want to visit the "Settings" menu and activate some of the deactivated repositories, or add new ones if you know what you're doing. After changing the repositories, click "Reload package information" in the "Edit" menu.
Then use the "Search" button or dig through the categories in the sidebar to find the packages you need, and mark them for installation. If any of the packages depends on additional packages to function (e.g. libraries), a dialogue box will pop up, list them, and ask you for permission to install those as well.
Click the "Apply" button. The packages will be downloaded and installed automatically. Most likely, you will not be asked any questions (where to install them, who to install them for, etc.). If nothing seems to happen, though, click "details".
Exit synaptic. You can now start your new apps by typing their name (no PATH tweakery necessary). Usually, they've also been added to the "start menu" equivalent of your desktop environment.
If you already know the name of the package, you can just type
sudo apt-get install packagename
To uninstall:
sudo apt-get remove packagename
(Or use synaptic again.)
Other distributions are similar.
Sometimes, though, there's no ready-made package in any of the repositories, and you'll indeed have to download something from a website.
It may be ready-to-run (just extract it and copy it wherever you want), it may have a very Windows-like installer script, or you may have to bite the bullet and compile it from source.
Allegedly, compiling from source is as easy as typing "./configure", then "make", then (with superuser privileges) "make install" in the source directory, but I've found that it tends to require additional packages so some time may be spent on this.:/
Yes, oi 'n an u!
Go, caphy!
On ja Jimo, oc no?
Wye, diod 'nuf ba?
HUGE bneoko!
Rut. Cacpod, Jo!
I a Hair-Nesita!
Ses I, k'zay?
Feb quet - moj na...
Anyway, better "Pidgin" than some pseudo-scientific fake-Latin flavourless nonword or arbitrary baby talk with a double-o in there somewhere. I like names that actually relate to the product...
The C 16, 116 (same with rubber keys) and Plus/4 (w/ "faster" 1551 floppy drive?) were dumped for cheap in grocery stores here so I and many other kids eventually got to have their own little computers. Apparently the platform rose to similar necessity-born popularity over in Hungary where it was widely used in schools.
German company Kingsoft sold useful adds like an improved BASIC/screen editor and an 80 characters cartridge...
The Plus/4 wasn't so bad for the quasi-unambitious school kid. BASIC 3.5 had SOUND, CIRCLE, BOX, DO, LOOP and other "advanced" features that made it a more instantly gratifying learning platform....
Later on, Hungarian hackers built a SID-based soundcard... C 64 games were ported over and multimedia demos with colourful and/or vector graphics written. Quite intriguing if you never thought these things were possible. Though really it was largely the very low price that lead to some sort of mini-boom over here...
I've done it for years (the box, not the whore, natch) with Win 95, 98 and XP and never had a problem. Every once in a while I installed and ran an up-to-date version of Spybot S&D, Ad-Aware, Avast/AVG/Anti-Vir/what-have-you in order to confirm the pristine nature of the system - successfully, unless you want to count cookies. I do know people who've been tragically afflicted with malware; it's not like I'm denying the problem... I just don't know how they do it. Maybe it's the firewall? The updating? The staying away from warez? The staying away from IE? The not clicking yes whenever I'm told to? Dunno. I guess there're many "Windows behaviours" (all this "staying away") that I assimilated unconsciously (never (originally) wanted a PC, never liked MS...). Now I feel like just stating I've never had malware issues in Windows is practically trolling;)
1. The Farmbetter (too much to lose)
2. The Scaredycat (too much to learn)
3. The Pwnz0r (too few games)
4. The ClosetMac (no Flash/Pro Tools/Reason/Photoshop/...)
5. The Tuxmarooned (issues with sound/ACPI/scanner/iPod/...)
6. The Fanboy (you're just envious of Bill)
7. The Appliance Liability (but all my colleagues use MS Word clipart)
8. All those people who just don't care
Crap, they've outnumbered us!:}
(Firefox' spellchecker: yes to "Pwnz0r" and "djoasüceéßiej3409jio", no to "spellchecker" and "clipart"?)
I think the design of the three chess boards perfectly matches the aesthetics of their respective OS - much like Word 6's ballpoint pen matched that of Windows 3.x. Not that that's likely to be much of a coincidence.
And of course it's not "normal" to feel like that, but it's also not psychotic. The common bit of advice "just listen to your inner voice!" isn't a reference to actual auditory hallucinations either.
I don't know how you've come to these conclusions, though. Got something to link to regarding the treatment you spoke of?
It can be treated if a person wants it to be treated.
Eh... as far as I can tell, every "candidate" I've met would have rebelled against the very idea of that. They'd consider a "sexchange" the appropriate treatment.
I'm pretty sure schizophrenia would come up in differential diagnosis only, and I also doubt transgenderism/transsexualism/gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria/whatever-you-want-to-call-it can be "cured" or suppressed with neuroleptics. I'm not talking about literal delusions, paranoia or hallucinations here -- I didn't mean you'd be convinced you're literally wearing somebody else's body, or speaking with somebody else's voice, or that you wouldn't understand why people treat you as your birth sex... just that you might distressed because these things contradict your own ideas of yourself. But it's a complex subject and I'm hardly qualified to collapse it into a single paragraph.
Freak is a subjective term only relevent to the person using it. IMHO, anyone who mutilates their body ofr some altimate excitment is one. And I'll leave it at that. I don't consider you a freak yet i don't know you well enough one way or the other.
Sometimes people "mutilate their bodies" because they already feel that their bodies are "mutilated" (or wrong), that people perceive them wrongly, that their face or voice aren't really theirs, that there simply is no real life available to them in their biological gender. If you want to think of that as the pursuit of some ultimate excitement, then you're ignoring too many facets of it - IMHO.
I may or may not be a "freak" to you but I'm not too sure I'm personally affected by the marriage debate. It's just that I think the laws as they are reflect traditional ideas of marriage that could use an upgrade by now. I don't think the laws should mention love; I don't think they have to. That they don't (actually, I'll just take your word for it) doesn't mean marriage itself has nothing to do with feelings. If you outlawed heterosexual marriage, the outrage would be immense. No way you could argue that "it's not about love" and that they do after all have the same right as everyone else (to marry "gay"... after all, the law defines marriage as between two people of the same sex, it doesn't say they have to like each other...)
But really, I'm running out of ways to phrase this... so that just was the last try:)
That last bit was poking fun at myself, actually, sort of giving a naive, reductionist answer to a rather extreme proposition. (Example scenario: You want to marry your girlfriend, but it's illegal. So she changes her name to "Frank", has her breasts removed, gets weekly testosterone injections, grows a beard and body hair, develops a deeper voice, maybe has some plastic surgery done down there to satisfy this or that local law, quite possibly loses her job, alienates her family... wouldn't you rather just stay unmarried? I think "sex change" is for people who suffer from a serious gender conflict, not from a legal inconvenience.)
The nature of transsexuality is another complex matter. I won't be going into that now...
Regarding homo marriage laws - I do think I see what you mean; I just think it's missing the point. I also think we're going in circles here, so I'll stop arguing now, okay?
Saying you are denied the same rights as a woman has is misleading and false at best.
Then I'm glad I said no such thing... (were you thinking of your previous discussion partner?)
A woman isn't allowed to marry a person of the same sex. Neither are you.
Again: that wasn't my argument, but ok.
When you do think of people in terms of male and female, then there's no inequality there; when you think of them in terms of hetero- and homosexuality, though -- well, of course a homosexual individual is not technically denied the right to marry; a homosexual couple, however, is. It's a status (with various benefits) available to some people but not others. Now, feelings may not be part of the law - but love is commonly understood to be a part of marriage these days.
So I don't see the "extra right" in gay marriage. IMHO it's no more an extra than non-gay marriage...?
To put it less bizarrely, homosexuals would acquire heterosexuals' right to marry people they're actually interested in.
If it is mariage and their interested in the people of the oposite sex, then I would agree. It seems that traditionaly, it has been this way and currently, it is this way in many states. And the only ones that I know of that are different, are so because of misguided court actions who appear to be operating out of activism.
(Not sure what you're talking about - maybe because I've never been in America)
If your a man and want to marry a man, (...), or one of you have a sexchange operation.
But then it wouldn't be gay anymore...:( (Not that that's my concern here)
BTW, I'm not against Gays getting married. I'm just against this asertion of extra rights that no one else has.
Sorry, I can't follow your argument here. If marriage were to be opened to homosexual couples, heterosexuals would acquire homosexuals' traditional right to marry somebody they aren't attracted to. Wouldn't that make things more equal?
To put it less bizarrely, homosexuals would acquire heterosexuals' right to marry people they're actually interested in.
Does it hinge on your premise that being gay is a choice? Even if I bought that premise (I haven't researched this or anything, nor do I feel qualified to do so), gay marriage would still be giving everyone the same "extra" rights. After all, anyone might then one day choose to be gay.
So far I obviously see no reason to believe in any hell not of our own making, although there is an undercurrent of fear that it might exist despite any lack of evidence. I suspect that if I did believe in hell... I might have to reject religion for being an incomparably cruel example of "poisonous pedagogy". If, that is, I would still have the courage to do so - I might just be too frightened to object.
Nothing in this world _proves_ the existence of God. I never talked about proof. I never came to the QED point. It is not scientific.
No, of course it isn't. My use of the word "prove" wasn't "scientific" either;). To me it sounded as though you were talking of a perceived necessity (of an absolute law, I take it) as a reason for it to exist. That is -- we need it to exist, so it does. How else am I supposed to understand this?
Sorry if I don't understood you correctly... and I'm not sure how this is connected to turning to the divine in times of great need.
But I don't think I "may do anything"; I have an imagination, empathy... realising that I have caused suffering is its own punishment and furthermore damages my sense of personal integrity. Sure - if I believed in divine retribution, it might well keep me from doing things that I simply do not consider worthy of punishment or even bad at all.
How, though, does a (or your) need for something proves its existence? It seems so much more likely to me that the world just isn't arranged around our needs.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, I suspect more people would become vegetarians (at least part-time) if artificial meat products were both tasty and affordable. Such a non-heroic act of non-abstinency may not lift anyone onto some moral high horse, but the animals probably couldn't care less (well, I suppose most of them wouldn't be born in the first place if nobody wanted to kill and eat them).
Maybe you were thinking of The Space Merchants by Frederik Pohl and C. M. Kornbluth.
That should have been http://pouet.net/ not Lemon64. Oopsie daisy. And tee-hee.
Oh, yes. I liked the "gloat messages" better than some of the games - I enjoyed the messages these (presumed) masked avenger types passed between each other. You can't not know the art form that became of them...?
On the Amiga, for example -
"Starstruck" demo by TBL (2006): http://youtube.com/watch?v=eUv0jSYRBZo (well worth watching to the end)
"The Castle" demo by Loonies (2002): http://youtube.com/watch?v=hGga-GsIkfY
"Gift" 64 KB (!) demo by Potion (2000): http://youtube.com/watch?v=nWeh9VQyP3E
"My Kingdom" demo by Haujobb (1997): http://youtube.com/watch?v=fO48kWb7QqA
"Mindglow" demo by Stellar (1993): http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kb7AQZR-CT4
Old school...ish crack intro by Paradox with remixed C64 music (1993): http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WDSEp86Nms
Old school crack intro by Oracle (1989): http://youtube.com/watch?v=doyWnPDsY5o
Old school crack intro by Ackerlight (1988): http://youtube.com/watch?v=6btAtfAhgLw
On the Commodore 128 -
"Risen from Oblivion" by Crest & Oxyron (?): http://youtube.com/watch?v=W8ZyA3WzpZQ
On the Commodore Plus/4 (with SID soundcard!)-
"heartfixer" by Resource & FIRE: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kn5D9mxQ5Mw
"Infinity" pt 1 by Vision (1994): http://youtube.com/watch?v=PSt9dCdRW_Q
"Infinity" pt 2 by Vision (1994): http://youtube.com/watch?v=sQV4IwwCsEM
Okay, I've had enough fun digging these up to forget all about Lemon and My apologies if all this is old hat to you (this being slashdot etc. blah blah)
I rarely/never seem to find OSS apps blocked, whereas I run into troubles with ALSA (specifically with Amarok and Kaffeine using the Xine backend, and on occasion Audacity):
.asoundrc, but deleting it didn't seem to make much of a difference lately... I guess ALSA changed)
Firefox runs some random Flash thingie
I start Amarok (ALSA): Xine could not initialise any audio drivers
I switch Amarok to PulseAudo: device is busy
I switch Amarok to OSS (or just keep it on autodetect) - now it works
I start jackd using ALSA - also works?
There's never really anything that doesn't work (well, Doom 3...) but I can't say the process is at all obvious to me...
(I used to use a dmix- and dsnoop-providing
The nvidia-settings tool wrote me a Twinview xorg.conf that wasn't even half the size of the one I'd been lugging around from distro to distro, and it worked; just had to add some single-screen metamodes for fullscreen games...
It took me forever just to figure out that most of the commonly mentioned problems weren't my problems and that an arcane .asoundrc setup comprising dmix, dsnoop and rate conversion plugins ("slaves"?) was the answer to getting playback and capture working - and I'm still puzzled with regard to the roughly 10 devices I find listed in the Audacity preferences, none of which really work, or as to why upstanding applications like Kaffeine or Amarok work better when told to use OSS (emulation) instead of ALSA proper...
Finally I decided to buy a modern, super-supported "real" soundcard - and while it played sound just fine, I couldn't get it to record anything at all. Back to store.
I don't want to blame the developers; they probably don't get a lot of support from the manufacturers. I'm no Linux expert (obviously) so if my time weren't worthless and if I didn't basically enjoy Linux I might've given up; the amount of terminology to sort through before you know what anything's actually good for is staggering (LADSPA JACK ALSA OSS Portaudio GST ESD aRts...) It's working now, but I hope I won't have to do this again on another computer any time soon.
(Sound in Doom 3 horribly broken but who cares)
Ubuntu example:
- Run synaptic (or kpackage or adept or whatthefuckever, but synaptic seems easiest to me). If this is your first time running synaptic, you may want to visit the "Settings" menu and activate some of the deactivated repositories, or add new ones if you know what you're doing. After changing the repositories, click "Reload package information" in the "Edit" menu.
- Then use the "Search" button or dig through the categories in the sidebar to find the packages you need, and mark them for installation. If any of the packages depends on additional packages to function (e.g. libraries), a dialogue box will pop up, list them, and ask you for permission to install those as well.
- Click the "Apply" button. The packages will be downloaded and installed automatically. Most likely, you will not be asked any questions (where to install them, who to install them for, etc.). If nothing seems to happen, though, click "details".
- Exit synaptic. You can now start your new apps by typing their name (no PATH tweakery necessary). Usually, they've also been added to the "start menu" equivalent of your desktop environment.
If you already know the name of the package, you can just type- sudo apt-get install packagename
To uninstall:- sudo apt-get remove packagename
(Or use synaptic again.)Other distributions are similar.
Sometimes, though, there's no ready-made package in any of the repositories, and you'll indeed have to download something from a website.
It may be ready-to-run (just extract it and copy it wherever you want), it may have a very Windows-like installer script, or you may have to bite the bullet and compile it from source.
Allegedly, compiling from source is as easy as typing "./configure", then "make", then (with superuser privileges) "make install" in the source directory, but I've found that it tends to require additional packages so some time may be spent on this.
Mishkosu isn't so bad :}
The others all get me stuck trying to parse them.
Yes, oi 'n an u!
Go, caphy!
On ja Jimo, oc no?
Wye, diod 'nuf ba?
HUGE bneoko!
Rut. Cacpod, Jo!
I a Hair-Nesita!
Ses I, k'zay?
Feb quet - moj na...
Anyway, better "Pidgin" than some pseudo-scientific fake-Latin flavourless nonword or arbitrary baby talk with a double-o in there somewhere. I like names that actually relate to the product...
The C 16, 116 (same with rubber keys) and Plus/4 (w/ "faster" 1551 floppy drive?) were dumped for cheap in grocery stores here so I and many other kids eventually got to have their own little computers. Apparently the platform rose to similar necessity-born popularity over in Hungary where it was widely used in schools.
German company Kingsoft sold useful adds like an improved BASIC/screen editor and an 80 characters cartridge...
The Plus/4 wasn't so bad for the quasi-unambitious school kid. BASIC 3.5 had SOUND, CIRCLE, BOX, DO, LOOP and other "advanced" features that made it a more instantly gratifying learning platform....
Later on, Hungarian hackers built a SID-based soundcard... C 64 games were ported over and multimedia demos with colourful and/or vector graphics written. Quite intriguing if you never thought these things were possible. Though really it was largely the very low price that lead to some sort of mini-boom over here...
I've done it for years (the box, not the whore, natch) with Win 95, 98 and XP and never had a problem. Every once in a while I installed and ran an up-to-date version of Spybot S&D, Ad-Aware, Avast/AVG/Anti-Vir/what-have-you in order to confirm the pristine nature of the system - successfully, unless you want to count cookies. I do know people who've been tragically afflicted with malware; it's not like I'm denying the problem... I just don't know how they do it. Maybe it's the firewall? The updating? The staying away from warez? The staying away from IE? The not clicking yes whenever I'm told to? Dunno. I guess there're many "Windows behaviours" (all this "staying away") that I assimilated unconsciously (never (originally) wanted a PC, never liked MS...). Now I feel like just stating I've never had malware issues in Windows is practically trolling ;)
1. The Farmbetter (too much to lose)
:}
2. The Scaredycat (too much to learn)
3. The Pwnz0r (too few games)
4. The ClosetMac (no Flash/Pro Tools/Reason/Photoshop/...)
5. The Tuxmarooned (issues with sound/ACPI/scanner/iPod/...)
6. The Fanboy (you're just envious of Bill)
7. The Appliance Liability (but all my colleagues use MS Word clipart)
8. All those people who just don't care
Crap, they've outnumbered us!
(Firefox' spellchecker: yes to "Pwnz0r" and "djoasüceéßiej3409jio", no to "spellchecker" and "clipart"?)
I think the design of the three chess boards perfectly matches the aesthetics of their respective OS - much like Word 6's ballpoint pen matched that of Windows 3.x. Not that that's likely to be much of a coincidence.
It's bit too critical to be mere "catering".
And of course it's not "normal" to feel like that, but it's also not psychotic. The common bit of advice "just listen to your inner voice!" isn't a reference to actual auditory hallucinations either.
I don't know how you've come to these conclusions, though. Got something to link to regarding the treatment you spoke of?
Could be interesting, though. Sources?
I'm pretty sure schizophrenia would come up in differential diagnosis only, and I also doubt transgenderism/transsexualism/gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria/whatever-you-want-to-call-it can be "cured" or suppressed with neuroleptics. I'm not talking about literal delusions, paranoia or hallucinations here -- I didn't mean you'd be convinced you're literally wearing somebody else's body, or speaking with somebody else's voice, or that you wouldn't understand why people treat you as your birth sex... just that you might distressed because these things contradict your own ideas of yourself. But it's a complex subject and I'm hardly qualified to collapse it into a single paragraph.
*looks at transcript*
:P
Oh my. You need to play some new text adventures.
I may or may not be a "freak" to you but I'm not too sure I'm personally affected by the marriage debate. It's just that I think the laws as they are reflect traditional ideas of marriage that could use an upgrade by now. I don't think the laws should mention love; I don't think they have to. That they don't (actually, I'll just take your word for it) doesn't mean marriage itself has nothing to do with feelings. If you outlawed heterosexual marriage, the outrage would be immense. No way you could argue that "it's not about love" and that they do after all have the same right as everyone else (to marry "gay"... after all, the law defines marriage as between two people of the same sex, it doesn't say they have to like each other...)
:)
But really, I'm running out of ways to phrase this... so that just was the last try
That last bit was poking fun at myself, actually, sort of giving a naive, reductionist answer to a rather extreme proposition. (Example scenario: You want to marry your girlfriend, but it's illegal. So she changes her name to "Frank", has her breasts removed, gets weekly testosterone injections, grows a beard and body hair, develops a deeper voice, maybe has some plastic surgery done down there to satisfy this or that local law, quite possibly loses her job, alienates her family... wouldn't you rather just stay unmarried? I think "sex change" is for people who suffer from a serious gender conflict, not from a legal inconvenience.)
The nature of transsexuality is another complex matter. I won't be going into that now...
Regarding homo marriage laws - I do think I see what you mean; I just think it's missing the point. I also think we're going in circles here, so I'll stop arguing now, okay?
When you do think of people in terms of male and female, then there's no inequality there; when you think of them in terms of hetero- and homosexuality, though -- well, of course a homosexual individual is not technically denied the right to marry; a homosexual couple, however, is. It's a status (with various benefits) available to some people but not others. Now, feelings may not be part of the law - but love is commonly understood to be a part of marriage these days.
So I don't see the "extra right" in gay marriage. IMHO it's no more an extra than non-gay marriage...? (Not sure what you're talking about - maybe because I've never been in America) But then it wouldn't be gay anymore...
To put it less bizarrely, homosexuals would acquire heterosexuals' right to marry people they're actually interested in.
Does it hinge on your premise that being gay is a choice? Even if I bought that premise (I haven't researched this or anything, nor do I feel qualified to do so), gay marriage would still be giving everyone the same "extra" rights. After all, anyone might then one day choose to be gay.
Well, if that works for you...
No, of course it isn't. My use of the word "prove" wasn't "scientific" either
Sorry if I don't understood you correctly... and I'm not sure how this is connected to turning to the divine in times of great need.
But I don't think I "may do anything"; I have an imagination, empathy... realising that I have caused suffering is its own punishment and furthermore damages my sense of personal integrity. Sure - if I believed in divine retribution, it might well keep me from doing things that I simply do not consider worthy of punishment or even bad at all.
How, though, does a (or your) need for something proves its existence? It seems so much more likely to me that the world just isn't arranged around our needs.