Since the vista service pack, windows 7, runs nearly as fast as XP when given enough hardware I guess some of us would have expected at least that level of performance at initial release.
Actually in the case of a Macro kernel, the entire OS is the kernel and it is properly referred to as Linux. GNU makes some libs and userspace apps that you can run on the Linux OS though and many distributions package them together... those are properly referred to by the name of the distribution, which may or may not include the word Linux and may or may not include GNU. None of which is at the discretion of Stallman.
"That's why you limit inbound traffic so that it won't saturate your network."
Alright. I'll bite. Now when you limit inbound traffic, either via dropping or queuing. What does tcp do in response? What does udp do in response?
"There are quite valid reasons for streaming non-live data. The target device might not have enough RAM to buffer a considerable portion of the data. There are also situations where the full item is huge compared to the parts that are going to be watched."
The target device can use disk for video. As for situations where the full item is huge compared to the parts being watched, when the entire file can be downloaded in a few seconds.. who cares?
You've missed the point. In science the groups are specifically chosen for the utility of their defining characteristics. Too many exceptions results in a change of the groupings. Groupings outside of science rarely relate. They are built on useless poorly defined traits like self description, race, skin color, etc.
"However, if you have a job that requires substantial physical strength, and you have to choose between a man or a woman, and you can't see or test the candidates beforehand so all you know is their gender, then you'd be stupid to pick the woman. Yes, you might get stuck with a wussy 5' man when the female was a 6' amazon warrior, but the odds are very unlikely."
Now you are generalizing tall vs short men and women as well as genders. Height actually has some direct relation to potential strength so there is some utility in that grouping. In practice though, you will rarely find this type of generalization. People usually use generalizations to make decisions in place of testing candidates, not because the candidates can not be tested. Someone who has formed this generalization will make the assumption that any short male or any female who walks in the door and weak and unqualified and they will have the additional burden of overcoming this prejudice. A taller male who is comparably very weak may not be tested at all.
Flashbacks are over-rated. You will have a lingering effect for a couple days (if you did LOTS of LSD) and then, if you have done LOTS of LSD many times you will see motion trails on objects... potentially for the rest of your life. After those first couple days, if you have them, you are in absolutely no danger of flashbacks. This is from someone who has done hundreds if not thousands of hits of LSD.
Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. It would be more accurate to say "Marijuana is less dangerous than most over the counter medications, such as Asprin"
While marijuana smoke contains known carcinogens no study has found marijuana to cause increased risk of lung cancer (and yes, there have been credible studies looking and a great deal of surprise from the researchers at the results). Additionally, in a world of legal marijuana, marijuana is plentiful and therefore there is no particular reason to use more efficient methods of consumption like smoking over less efficient ones like eating. In a free market marijuana would probably sell for about $2-3 a pound.
"Both are far more beneficial to the government then keeping it illegal."
That depends on whether you are talking about the virtual "government" entity or the politicians who make it up.
The illicit drug trade would definitely curtail their bribes if their politicians voted for something that is going to drop the bottom out of one of their most profitable markets.
You do know marijuana works just fine if eaten right? It is less efficient so you wouldn't do it much at the super high black market prices but since marijuana is extremely cheap to produce in large quantities (one good sized dedicated farm could produce the current national consumption) there is no reason not to make pot butter/milk/candy/alcoholic shots/etc instead of smoking. It lasts longer too.
"Expecting someone else to do it for them, or just waiting until absolutely no one who votes is actually opposed to marijuana is going to take an extremely long time, and is just plain lazy."
When Obama put up change.gov site to ask for public feedback the response thundered back that the public is opposed to marijuana prohibition and the war on drugs. You are sadly mistaken if you confuse the issues that politicians are generally willing to allow face time (along with the puppet Dem and Rep branded media) with the issues that concern the general public.
"I don't think there's a conspiracy here, I think it's just pot smokers aren't doing anything to win their rights back."
Not everyone who is opposed to marijuana prohibition and the war on drugs is a "Pot Smoker". Some of us don't support government prohibition of any sort of drug and would like to see the FDA step back to a regulating the safe manufacture of drugs and medical advertising claims without actually forbidding any substance from purchase without a prescription.
"Not if you have a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia"
Can exacerbate certain heart conditions as well. And of course if you choose to smoke (which isn't the only choice) it potentially carries the same harmful risks as other forms of smoking. It is interesting that even though the smoke contains known carcinogens credible studies haven't shown an increased risk of lung cancer. I fully agree we shouldn't make preposterous claims. They just open the door for people to make these side effects sound far more serious and common than they are.
I once debated a Harvard medical professor on the subject after seeing an article he wrote about the dangers of marijuana. I pretty much stumped him on one simple point. It is easy to make the side effects sound dangerous. But is there anyone who would claim the known side effects are more severe than those of Asprin or occur as often as those of Asprin? So far I've found the answer to be no.
Asprin is an over the counter medication. There are alternatives for pretty much every use of Asprin so it isn't on the shelf because there is no choice. Despite consistent and common deadly side effects I've never met anyone proposing that people can't be trusted to decide if they should take asprin. Asprin kills at least 500 people in the US each year, Marijuana has never killed anyone that we know of.
"I think that guy would be absolutely horrified to know how many people around him are high. Horrified."
Agreed. That said, consistent daily smoking DOES result in temporary reduced memory function. It comes back if you stop, actually it not only returns but is accompanied by neurogenesis so you will end up with a higher mental capacity than you had before you smoked.
I wouldn't go as high as 100% or as low as 90%, in fact I'd say you'd need a clear context to even begin to come up with a valid number. For instance a toxic dose is virtually impossible with marijuana so you are at least 99.99999% safe from overdose while you are probably 0.00001% safe from lung irritation if you smoke (in a world with legal marijuana that ISN'T highly taxed ingestion marijuana would be cheap and plentiful so safer but less efficient use of the material like ingestion would be viable).
That said, the side effects are generally less severe and with lower incidence than most over the counter drugs. Asprin is a good example of an over the counter medication that generally far more dangerous than marijuana.
"So why do so many people get so upset when you talk about distinct groups of people and make blanket statements?"
Because the decisions often have no relation to the distinctions upon which the people are grouped. You can group males and females and say that men are stronger than females and therefore the government should only provide tax dollars to create physical labor jobs if they are staffed by males since they are more productive.
As a trend it is true that males, on average, are stronger than the average female. As a group this is perfectly valid logic. But in the real world there are literally millions of exceptions to this generalization that you are discriminating against and you would be wrong to suggest a policy that would deny those millions of perfectly capable females who want to fill these positions.
Most atheists arrived there via careful reasoning and intellect. I think you'll find that it is very difficult for people to have those attributes and still think "commies" is an insult whether they agree with the underlying theory or not.
I would say that most atheists are intellectuals and most intellectuals are not "conservative" as the term is commonly used in the US.
However, if you are in IT you might fall into another demographic which is highly paid and highly paid people tend to be financially conservative because it supports their materialistic.. and I said materialistic -- not material -- view.
Slashdot Mirror
It marks the 20th anniversary of Linux. It really isn't that hard to understand wanting a major release to mark it.
Could be worse, could be emacs.
Good luck running dos 6.22 (that was the OS, not the 3.1 gui) on a modern workstation.
Since the vista service pack, windows 7, runs nearly as fast as XP when given enough hardware I guess some of us would have expected at least that level of performance at initial release.
Actually in the case of a Macro kernel, the entire OS is the kernel and it is properly referred to as Linux. GNU makes some libs and userspace apps that you can run on the Linux OS though and many distributions package them together... those are properly referred to by the name of the distribution, which may or may not include the word Linux and may or may not include GNU. None of which is at the discretion of Stallman.
Actually the entire OS is the kernel. It's windows and macites who push to redefine the OS as being the entire distribution.
Especially since Windows 7 is just a vista service pack...
"That's why you limit inbound traffic so that it won't saturate your network."
Alright. I'll bite. Now when you limit inbound traffic, either via dropping or queuing. What does tcp do in response? What does udp do in response?
"There are quite valid reasons for streaming non-live data. The target device might not have enough RAM to buffer a considerable portion of the data. There are also situations where the full item is huge compared to the parts that are going to be watched."
The target device can use disk for video. As for situations where the full item is huge compared to the parts being watched, when the entire file can be downloaded in a few seconds.. who cares?
*rib nudge* thats what she said
You've missed the point. In science the groups are specifically chosen for the utility of their defining characteristics. Too many exceptions results in a change of the groupings. Groupings outside of science rarely relate. They are built on useless poorly defined traits like self description, race, skin color, etc.
"However, if you have a job that requires substantial physical strength, and you have to choose between a man or a woman, and you can't see or test the candidates beforehand so all you know is their gender, then you'd be stupid to pick the woman. Yes, you might get stuck with a wussy 5' man when the female was a 6' amazon warrior, but the odds are very unlikely."
Now you are generalizing tall vs short men and women as well as genders. Height actually has some direct relation to potential strength so there is some utility in that grouping. In practice though, you will rarely find this type of generalization. People usually use generalizations to make decisions in place of testing candidates, not because the candidates can not be tested. Someone who has formed this generalization will make the assumption that any short male or any female who walks in the door and weak and unqualified and they will have the additional burden of overcoming this prejudice. A taller male who is comparably very weak may not be tested at all.
Flashbacks are over-rated. You will have a lingering effect for a couple days (if you did LOTS of LSD) and then, if you have done LOTS of LSD many times you will see motion trails on objects... potentially for the rest of your life. After those first couple days, if you have them, you are in absolutely no danger of flashbacks. This is from someone who has done hundreds if not thousands of hits of LSD.
Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. It would be more accurate to say "Marijuana is less dangerous than most over the counter medications, such as Asprin"
While marijuana smoke contains known carcinogens no study has found marijuana to cause increased risk of lung cancer (and yes, there have been credible studies looking and a great deal of surprise from the researchers at the results). Additionally, in a world of legal marijuana, marijuana is plentiful and therefore there is no particular reason to use more efficient methods of consumption like smoking over less efficient ones like eating. In a free market marijuana would probably sell for about $2-3 a pound.
"Both are far more beneficial to the government then keeping it illegal."
That depends on whether you are talking about the virtual "government" entity or the politicians who make it up.
The illicit drug trade would definitely curtail their bribes if their politicians voted for something that is going to drop the bottom out of one of their most profitable markets.
You do know marijuana works just fine if eaten right? It is less efficient so you wouldn't do it much at the super high black market prices but since marijuana is extremely cheap to produce in large quantities (one good sized dedicated farm could produce the current national consumption) there is no reason not to make pot butter/milk/candy/alcoholic shots/etc instead of smoking. It lasts longer too.
Obama made his stance pretty clear when the people made marijuana and the war on drugs their #1 issue of concern on change.gov.
"Expecting someone else to do it for them, or just waiting until absolutely no one who votes is actually opposed to marijuana is going to take an extremely long time, and is just plain lazy."
When Obama put up change.gov site to ask for public feedback the response thundered back that the public is opposed to marijuana prohibition and the war on drugs. You are sadly mistaken if you confuse the issues that politicians are generally willing to allow face time (along with the puppet Dem and Rep branded media) with the issues that concern the general public.
"I don't think there's a conspiracy here, I think it's just pot smokers aren't doing anything to win their rights back."
Not everyone who is opposed to marijuana prohibition and the war on drugs is a "Pot Smoker". Some of us don't support government prohibition of any sort of drug and would like to see the FDA step back to a regulating the safe manufacture of drugs and medical advertising claims without actually forbidding any substance from purchase without a prescription.
"Not if you have a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia"
Can exacerbate certain heart conditions as well. And of course if you choose to smoke (which isn't the only choice) it potentially carries the same harmful risks as other forms of smoking. It is interesting that even though the smoke contains known carcinogens credible studies haven't shown an increased risk of lung cancer. I fully agree we shouldn't make preposterous claims. They just open the door for people to make these side effects sound far more serious and common than they are.
I once debated a Harvard medical professor on the subject after seeing an article he wrote about the dangers of marijuana. I pretty much stumped him on one simple point. It is easy to make the side effects sound dangerous. But is there anyone who would claim the known side effects are more severe than those of Asprin or occur as often as those of Asprin? So far I've found the answer to be no.
Asprin is an over the counter medication. There are alternatives for pretty much every use of Asprin so it isn't on the shelf because there is no choice. Despite consistent and common deadly side effects I've never met anyone proposing that people can't be trusted to decide if they should take asprin. Asprin kills at least 500 people in the US each year, Marijuana has never killed anyone that we know of.
"even just denying a driver's license to someone who has physically impaired perception or reflexes"
If only we did that. But every day millions of elderly drivers endanger others by driving.
You don't have to buy your milk from Big Dairy and there is little dairy and really little dairy (betsy in the backyard).
"I think that guy would be absolutely horrified to know how many people around him are high. Horrified."
Agreed. That said, consistent daily smoking DOES result in temporary reduced memory function. It comes back if you stop, actually it not only returns but is accompanied by neurogenesis so you will end up with a higher mental capacity than you had before you smoked.
I wouldn't go as high as 100% or as low as 90%, in fact I'd say you'd need a clear context to even begin to come up with a valid number. For instance a toxic dose is virtually impossible with marijuana so you are at least 99.99999% safe from overdose while you are probably 0.00001% safe from lung irritation if you smoke (in a world with legal marijuana that ISN'T highly taxed ingestion marijuana would be cheap and plentiful so safer but less efficient use of the material like ingestion would be viable).
That said, the side effects are generally less severe and with lower incidence than most over the counter drugs. Asprin is a good example of an over the counter medication that generally far more dangerous than marijuana.
"So why do so many people get so upset when you talk about distinct groups of people and make blanket statements?"
Because the decisions often have no relation to the distinctions upon which the people are grouped. You can group males and females and say that men are stronger than females and therefore the government should only provide tax dollars to create physical labor jobs if they are staffed by males since they are more productive.
As a trend it is true that males, on average, are stronger than the average female. As a group this is perfectly valid logic. But in the real world there are literally millions of exceptions to this generalization that you are discriminating against and you would be wrong to suggest a policy that would deny those millions of perfectly capable females who want to fill these positions.
why is this marked troll? It is pretty insightful?
Most atheists arrived there via careful reasoning and intellect. I think you'll find that it is very difficult for people to have those attributes and still think "commies" is an insult whether they agree with the underlying theory or not.
I would say that most atheists are intellectuals and most intellectuals are not "conservative" as the term is commonly used in the US.
However, if you are in IT you might fall into another demographic which is highly paid and highly paid people tend to be financially conservative because it supports their materialistic.. and I said materialistic -- not material -- view.