Although we met several technical challenges along the way
(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
were unable to defrag its ext2 file system)
See here for HOWTO on Linux Token Ring, and here for a discussion of why ext2 filesystems don't really need defragging. Oh, and report to the CEO of each company you consult for, requesting to be fired for being a pig-ignorant moron; I found these examples from 2 minutes on Google.
i may not be a cosmologist, never admitted to being one. but the big bang theory has not been proven even mostly true. too many people who study science disagree with it.
I'm an astrophysicist, and some of my colleagues are cosmologists. From talking to them (and co-authoring a paper on observational cosmology), I can confirm that the evidence for the big bang amongst cosmologists as a community is very strong, and there are almost no scientists in the field who claim that the big bang did not occurr. Your argument has just blown up in your face.
and the fact of the matter remains that you can't really prove that any of that happened
I could say the same of every word written in the Bible.
after they get a settlement from the church on the order of millions of dollars
Not only a settlement, but in many cases an admission of guilt. Are you now claiming that all of the allegations were made up?
so i guess you know nothing about evolution
Although I notice you have a biology degree from UConn, it seems (from the rubbish you've been spouting on/.) that it is you who are deficient in their understanding of evolution.
since you don't seem to be bringing anything up about it
If you read my original post, you will see that my beef was over your stunning ignorance of the Scientific Method. Evolution is something which you brought up in attempt to lay out your credentials, viz: 'I've got a biology degree, and I still think evolution sucks'. Unfortunately, you are hoist by your own petard; the only thing which has been laid out is your manifest inability to grasp even the most general points of science.
and enjoy your miserable little life in a cubicle in the wonderful world of computers
Judging from the resume you post on your website, this is exactly the life which you appear to desire. Me, I use computers in my work, but my work is not computers...
Your own what? Your own penis? From your postings, I find that hard to believe. You need your pastor to do it for you, and I'm sure he's been performing this service since you were but a babe. Or so recent events in the news lead me to understand...
Josephus wrote after Jesus had supposedly died, therefore I don't regard his account as contemporary (and neither, for that matter, do I regard most of the gospels as contemporary).
Not entirely accurate. God has left evidence printed on the pages of history. How about all of the prophecies in the Bible which have come true?
Except all of the most important ones. Jesus led his disciples to believe that the Second Coming would occur within their lifetime. Its been nearly 2,000 years now, where the hell is he?
It is a historical fact that he lived
There's rarely such a thing as historical fact. There are historical sources, from which one may make historical inferences; but facts are always pretty scarce. AFAIK, there is only one mention of Jesus in contemporary independent documents, by Tacitus. However, the accuracy of that account is pretty shady. The Bible is no help either; St. Paul himself wrote long after Jesus was dead, and it isn't even certain whether he believed Jesus had existed as flesh-and-blood instead of as a spirit.
i have a theory that god exists and answers the prayers of the truly faithful
No you don't, you have a hypothesis. Furthermore, you have an untestable hypothesis; as you yourself point out, no experiment can be devised to examine whether your hypothesis is true or false. Therefore, your hypothesis carries the same weight as the notion (held by some) that there is an invisible pink unicorn which orbits Mars.
god works in strange ways
Well, that's convenient for him, isn't it?
you cannot prove that pray works by pulling some joe shmoe buddhist, jew, christian, and muslim off the street to pray for someone
How then can you decide whether prayer works? Don't tell me to take it on faith; if I'm going to spend a significant portion of my life on my knees, supplicating to some entitity in the hope that my relatives will get better, then I want to know that I'm not wasting my time.
god also doesn't want to be tested, it's not right
All these pronouncements about what God does and doesn't want. How do we know these things? Could it be that that the gatekeepers of Religion would rather we didn't ask these pesky questions, and instead went back into the dark cave, plugged our ears and gagged ourselves? Could it be that these 'statements' of God's desire are really statements by men who wish to have dominion over other men?
it's against all beliefs
Ahh, there we are: it's against all beliefs. So, God's desires are now dictated by the beliefs of his followers. How very convenient.
he doesn't answer the prayers of those who test him because that is a sign that you do not have complete faith
An alternative hypothesis, which fits the observationally data equally well, is this: God doesn't answer prayers because he doesn't exist. What evidence or argument can you offer a non-believer like me, in order for me to desert my hypothesis in favour of yours?
so of course this "study" will show prayer doesn't help. i believe it does
Nietzsche once commented thus: A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. He was right; no matter how comforting or attractive a proposition sounds, having faith in it is completely insufficient to make it true.
Just think about it: God creates a universe, populates it with sentient beings, and then sends his only-begotten son to save these beings from Hell. Does he write the good news on the Moon in mile-high letters for all to see? No, he inspires men to write a cryptic, error-riddled, tedious book, basically saying that the only way you can take advantage of salvation is to throw any notions of evidence out of the window, and take it all on blind faith. Which leads me to my final point: How is God so unfathomably inept at PR?
I said nothing about Apple, I merely commented on a benchmark procedure. It is you who are carrying the baggage of preconceptions; release yourself, my friend!
I can shed light to this extent: a linear scaling between processors and processing power is only realized in the most idealized of situations (those known as 'embarrasingly parallel'), where each job is small and completely independent of other jobs. The funny thing about embarrasingly parallel tasks is that they do not need a fancy parallel computer; they can just as easily be accomplished on N separate 486 machines, if N is sufficently large.
The upshot? If they claim a purely-linear scaling, they are either lying, or only considering those jobs for which one can get by on a (large) Beowulf cluster of shit machines. My head is not turned by this news...
Wrong. Business codes to make money. If money can be made from selling sub-standard code to the user (as is the case with Microsoft's browser monopoly), then business will do it. Business only takes heed of the user's needs when they absolutely must.
Web developers face the possibility of having to significantly rewrite their pages or strip them of commonly used technologies like Macromedia's Flash.
Can someone give me an example of a compromise based on a weak password?
Weak passwords remain vulnerable to dictionary attacks, whereby a large collection of everyday words is passed through the same one-way hashing algorithm that the password system uses. These encrypted strings are then compared against the entries in the system password file, which on many systems is readable by any user (typically for historical reasons). If a match is found, then it is trivial to see which plaintext word produced the encrypted string, and therefore what the password is.
To avoid dictionary attacks like this, you can:
Make sure World+Dog can't read the password file. The shadow suite on Unix systems is one way of doing this; it prevents ordinary users from accessing encrypted passwords, by storing them in/etc/shadow (readable only by root) rather than/etc/passwd (readable by all logged-on users).
Choose passwords which are not dictionary words, obviously. A reasonable approach is to join together a number of short dictionary words using punctuation symbols, and mix the case up a bit. I'm paranoid, however, and I go for a completely-random sequence of characters and symbols, which I spend an evening burning into my brain.
Regularly run crack, which checks for weak passwords. This program was developed by Alec Muffett, one of the original pioneers of dictionary attacks.
I'm still wary about pumping water into my computer. What if one of those microthin pipes were to burst? Then you'd get a microsized stream of water shorting out your not-so-micro-priced processor. I'll stick to windtunnels and heatsinks... maybe a heatpipe or two.
If the solid-state pump failed, this could quite easily happen. The water around the CPU would boil pretty quickly, and the huge pressure increase as it turned to steam would cause the silicon tubes to explode. So, on top of the water sloshing around your computer, we have small explosions going on. Hmmmm...
Slashdot Mirror
Alternately 7331 may be something related to the article rather than a script kiddie hieroglyph
Nope, you were right the first time; too much coffee on my behalf appears to have made me dyslexic...
...is the original creator of Linux From Scratch, and therefore registers very high on all standard 7331-meters
Although we met several technical challenges along the way (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system)
See here for HOWTO on Linux Token Ring, and here for a discussion of why ext2 filesystems don't really need defragging. Oh, and report to the CEO of each company you consult for, requesting to be fired for being a pig-ignorant moron; I found these examples from 2 minutes on Google.
Faith healing only works if everyone involved has no doubt that it will work
Jeez, we'd be completely fucked if 747's operated on this principle...
Jesus said in his temptation in the desert by Satan: Do not put the Lord your God to the test.
That's pretty rich, in light of all of the appalling tests which Job had to endure at God's hand. What happened to 'do unto others....?
i may not be a cosmologist, never admitted to being one. but the big bang theory has not been proven even mostly true. too many people who study science disagree with it.
I'm an astrophysicist, and some of my colleagues are cosmologists. From talking to them (and co-authoring a paper on observational cosmology), I can confirm that the evidence for the big bang amongst cosmologists as a community is very strong, and there are almost no scientists in the field who claim that the big bang did not occurr. Your argument has just blown up in your face.
and the fact of the matter remains that you can't really prove that any of that happened
I could say the same of every word written in the Bible.
after they get a settlement from the church on the order of millions of dollars
Not only a settlement, but in many cases an admission of guilt. Are you now claiming that all of the allegations were made up?
so i guess you know nothing about evolution
Although I notice you have a biology degree from UConn, it seems (from the rubbish you've been spouting on /.) that it is you who are deficient in their understanding of evolution.
since you don't seem to be bringing anything up about it
If you read my original post, you will see that my beef was over your stunning ignorance of the Scientific Method. Evolution is something which you brought up in attempt to lay out your credentials, viz: 'I've got a biology degree, and I still think evolution sucks'. Unfortunately, you are hoist by your own petard; the only thing which has been laid out is your manifest inability to grasp even the most general points of science.
and enjoy your miserable little life in a cubicle in the wonderful world of computers
Judging from the resume you post on your website, this is exactly the life which you appear to desire. Me, I use computers in my work, but my work is not computers...
i can hold my own when it comes to evolution.
Your own what? Your own penis? From your postings, I find that hard to believe. You need your pastor to do it for you, and I'm sure he's been performing this service since you were but a babe. Or so recent events in the news lead me to understand...
Josephus wrote after Jesus had supposedly died, therefore I don't regard his account as contemporary (and neither, for that matter, do I regard most of the gospels as contemporary).
Not entirely accurate. God has left evidence printed on the pages of history. How about all of the prophecies in the Bible which have come true?
Except all of the most important ones. Jesus led his disciples to believe that the Second Coming would occur within their lifetime. Its been nearly 2,000 years now, where the hell is he?
It is a historical fact that he lived
There's rarely such a thing as historical fact. There are historical sources, from which one may make historical inferences; but facts are always pretty scarce. AFAIK, there is only one mention of Jesus in contemporary independent documents, by Tacitus. However, the accuracy of that account is pretty shady. The Bible is no help either; St. Paul himself wrote long after Jesus was dead, and it isn't even certain whether he believed Jesus had existed as flesh-and-blood instead of as a spirit.
i have a theory that god exists and answers the prayers of the truly faithful
No you don't, you have a hypothesis. Furthermore, you have an untestable hypothesis; as you yourself point out, no experiment can be devised to examine whether your hypothesis is true or false. Therefore, your hypothesis carries the same weight as the notion (held by some) that there is an invisible pink unicorn which orbits Mars.
god works in strange ways
Well, that's convenient for him, isn't it?
you cannot prove that pray works by pulling some joe shmoe buddhist, jew, christian, and muslim off the street to pray for someone
How then can you decide whether prayer works? Don't tell me to take it on faith; if I'm going to spend a significant portion of my life on my knees, supplicating to some entitity in the hope that my relatives will get better, then I want to know that I'm not wasting my time.
god also doesn't want to be tested, it's not right
All these pronouncements about what God does and doesn't want. How do we know these things? Could it be that that the gatekeepers of Religion would rather we didn't ask these pesky questions, and instead went back into the dark cave, plugged our ears and gagged ourselves? Could it be that these 'statements' of God's desire are really statements by men who wish to have dominion over other men?
it's against all beliefs
Ahh, there we are: it's against all beliefs. So, God's desires are now dictated by the beliefs of his followers. How very convenient.
he doesn't answer the prayers of those who test him because that is a sign that you do not have complete faith
An alternative hypothesis, which fits the observationally data equally well, is this: God doesn't answer prayers because he doesn't exist. What evidence or argument can you offer a non-believer like me, in order for me to desert my hypothesis in favour of yours?
so of course this "study" will show prayer doesn't help. i believe it does
Nietzsche once commented thus: A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. He was right; no matter how comforting or attractive a proposition sounds, having faith in it is completely insufficient to make it true.
Just think about it: God creates a universe, populates it with sentient beings, and then sends his only-begotten son to save these beings from Hell. Does he write the good news on the Moon in mile-high letters for all to see? No, he inspires men to write a cryptic, error-riddled, tedious book, basically saying that the only way you can take advantage of salvation is to throw any notions of evidence out of the window, and take it all on blind faith. Which leads me to my final point: How is God so unfathomably inept at PR?
I said nothing about Apple, I merely commented on a benchmark procedure. It is you who are carrying the baggage of preconceptions; release yourself, my friend!
Would anyone care to shed some light onto this?
I can shed light to this extent: a linear scaling between processors and processing power is only realized in the most idealized of situations (those known as 'embarrasingly parallel'), where each job is small and completely independent of other jobs. The funny thing about embarrasingly parallel tasks is that they do not need a fancy parallel computer; they can just as easily be accomplished on N separate 486 machines, if N is sufficently large.
The upshot? If they claim a purely-linear scaling, they are either lying, or only considering those jobs for which one can get by on a (large) Beowulf cluster of shit machines. My head is not turned by this news...
I can now officially buy more disk storage than I can use
Then let me recommend you install MythTV. I bought an 80Gb drive from Best Buy last week (60 dollars after rebate - wow!), and it's already full.
What WON'T be in Linux 2.7?
Autorun. Can't let any DRM measures creep in, can we?
Obviously the work of the Teleban...
Wrong. Business codes to make money. If money can be made from selling sub-standard code to the user (as is the case with Microsoft's browser monopoly), then business will do it. Business only takes heed of the user's needs when they absolutely must.
Web developers face the possibility of having to significantly rewrite their pages or strip them of commonly used technologies like Macromedia's Flash.
Surely this can only be a good thing?
Can someone give me an example of a compromise based on a weak password?
Weak passwords remain vulnerable to dictionary attacks, whereby a large collection of everyday words is passed through the same one-way hashing algorithm that the password system uses. These encrypted strings are then compared against the entries in the system password file, which on many systems is readable by any user (typically for historical reasons). If a match is found, then it is trivial to see which plaintext word produced the encrypted string, and therefore what the password is.
To avoid dictionary attacks like this, you can:
I'm still wary about pumping water into my computer. What if one of those microthin pipes were to burst? Then you'd get a microsized stream of water shorting out your not-so-micro-priced processor. I'll stick to windtunnels and heatsinks... maybe a heatpipe or two.
If the solid-state pump failed, this could quite easily happen. The water around the CPU would boil pretty quickly, and the huge pressure increase as it turned to steam would cause the silicon tubes to explode. So, on top of the water sloshing around your computer, we have small explosions going on. Hmmmm...
Isn't this fifth type usually known as a "Perl Munger"?
Impressive, considering Google just turned 5. PageRank and time travel, what can't they do?
Well, it appears that taking over DejaNews a couple of years ago was not beyond their capabilities...
...which was covered by Slashdot yesterday. Once again, D'oh!
...Slashdot is over six years behind Google. D'oh, guys, D'OH!