Go on, prove him wrong an implement it. Run your script on the very page you're reading now, at -1 threshold. See how long it takes. Sorry. I agree with the grandparent - difficult You admit yourself: "Sometimes it wouldn't make sense" and that's already not good enough.
First, we're not dealing with a large statistical universe, here. We're dealing with the article poster's observation of ONE article, on ONE web page, and it made sense. We don't know that the company's system makes sense on ALL web pages, we only know that it made sense on one. We do know that he never noticed it before, though. But really, how many times do you see crap in articles that don't make sense? Never? How would you know there was a filter in place if the only qualification you had available was "Do all the sentences make sense?"?
Second, I didn't say it wouldn't need a big server or anything. I only said it was easy--programmatically. Implementing it on a network would require some extra doing, and probably some extra hardware. Again, the article poster makes it sound like his fascist company is particularly large, and can probably afford a pretty big box to do the job. They *must* be pretty big if the threat of lawsuits is that severe.
Third, I won't do it. It's one of those situations where "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should". And to prove a point isn't a good enough reason for me.
Naturally you're free to disagree with me all you want.:) I have suggested a way it can be done, and the article poster indicates that it has been done. That doesn't mean it actually has been done, though, so I suppose there's room for disagreement.;)
. . . then the 22,000 files in that directory scroll past so fast I can't see their names. However, if I apply the pipe function at the command prompt like this:
C:\Una\Purple Pants>DIR | more
. . . then the display will show me one screen of files at a time
Like this: (using any adjective noun combination, and noticing the DOS prompt)
C:\Una\Purple Pants>DIR
. . . then the 22,000 files in that directory scroll past so fast I can't see their names. However, if I apply the pipe function at the command prompt like this:
C:\Una\Purple Pants>DIR | more
. . . then the display will show me one screen of files at a time
Cleanly rewriting text with any "inappropriate" content -- difficult.
Bullshit. Make a list of words in the form of "part of speech"="word". Then you just need any of many available products that break sentences into parts of speech, and check for any "word"s, and replace them with any word from your dictionary that is also "part of speech". A little tweaking and you can even make it appear on topic. Sometimes it wouldn't make sense, but most of the time it would make perfect sense. It's called "Mad Lib".
There are many desireable characteristics of Christianity. Some not so desireable but then, many new sects of Christianity, as well as other religions, have been started to solve these problems and create new ones
The problem with Christianity is not the aggregate of all of its characteristics. IN that, it's just like any other religion: an attempt to dictate morality based on some uber-powerful being(s).
The problem with Christianity is the whole forgiveness principle, original sin, and so forth. The idea that you have to seek forgiveness from one of the previously mentioned uber-powerful being(s), who supposedly died in a very inhumane fashion (but not uncommon, for the time) so that you will feel guilty enough to fall for this tripe. That removes individual, personal responsibility from a person's everyday lives. "Oh gee, I can rape that little girl, as long as I ask for forgiveness" and so forth. Sure, many christians will respond to this and say "YOu only get forgiveness for it *once*", and some will respond and say "No, that's just plain wrong. You can't be forgiven for that". Whatever, dude. The basic problem is using guilt to force you into begging for forgiveness. It's a technique used by child molestors, wife-beaters, and yeah, even Hitler. Recognize that, and the rest of the religion just kind of, well, vanishes.
Now, I realize I poke mostly at Christianity in my ramblings, but it is my opinion that no religion is safe to build law upon. Yeah, I realize that religion has been around as long as civilization, and you know what? What has civilization dones in its long history? Anything good? Besides occasionally correcting the bad, that is. This is a point that could be debated for years and years and years, and no resolution will be found. I happen to think that civilization is generally good, but does a lot of specific bad things, for whatever reasons, not necessarily caused by religion.
My whole point was that you could easily base a system of morality on principles that don't ultimate derive from some uber-being. You can, in fact, build a system of morality based on human principles. Survival, freedom, responsibility, etc. Religion has dictated morality for too many thousands of years under the fiction that "without religion, you can't have morality". Whether or not you need morality to create law is a different debate entirely.:)
Actually, the puritans weren't bothered by persecution, they just wanted to be the persecuters.
OBviously, your parent poster has only partially thrown off his American Governmental conditioning and still has a ways to go. A long way, from the look of it.;)
So the score is 3 laws, 2 pieces of decent advice and 5 strictly religous Judeo-Christian specific edicts. Hardly a "universally accepted" basis of anything in the legal system.
Good job!
I'd like to add, if you don't mind, that the Ten COmmandments were the base for ALL of Moses's laws. The thing is, Moses laws were "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" etc. In that case, there is previous art in the area, from Mesopotamia, although I forget which civilization over which Hammurabi was king, exactly.
So by what principles do you build a Secular Humanist society? What governs morality? What do you hold in highest esteem for such a society to work?
Freedom and personal responsibility.
Examples:
The government can legislate that we do not have the right to kill, because in killing we would be taking away ALL the rights of another person.
The government can legislate that we do not have the right to steal property, because in stealing property we take away the right of the owner of that property to own it.
And so on and so forth. Logically, you can apply the principles of freedom and personal responsibility to establish a non-religious system of law that is just as widespread, corrupt, bloated, and threatening as our existing government. Therefore, you have a suitable replacement.
As much sarcasm as is there, you can also locially apply the principles of freedom and personal responsibility to government and wind up with a beneficial, almost utopian style of government. This you cannot do with Christian principles, or most any other religion's principles, for that matter.
When you're talking about making rules for all to follow, religion has no place. Religion has a place for making your own personal rules to follow (a dubious place, but a place, still).
I've got a better idea for a pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to my countrymen, and I will take personal responsibility for my country. I will participate in a government that acts for the benefit of my country, and I will participate in the overthrow of any other government in my country.
I mean, really, to whom do you owe your allegiance?
I forgot to mention that the US is a Republic, which comes from Ancient Greece (long before Christ), and is a form of government used by several other notable civilizations before Christ, such as Rome. Christianity brought us the barbaric monarchies, the Dark Ages, and so forth. In the US, after the Renaissance, it was sought to get away from religion and government entirely. (Yes, yes, I know, the High Priest of Jupiter was a high position in the ROman government)
It is a Christian country and it is defined and based on those assumptions
Nay. The United States was founded on the principles of freedom and personal responsibility. The scapegoat religion of Christianity denies those principles in favor of forgiveness. IN no way is the US founded on Christian principles.
The bug that I can't use my 'puter 'cause my roommate is on my machine playing Frozen Bubble is not a Mandrake issue.]
True, but for a small additional investment, smaller than the price of a computer, you can fix that bug. Just another monitor, keyboard, and mouse. (You might have to go usb for the keyboard and mouse, if you haven't already)
Has Mandrake's stability improved in the 9.x series? I'd especially like to hear from folks who were testing the Cooker versions that became 9.2. Thanks.
YES
As long as you don't install the Flash plugin, that is. The Flash plugin for Mozilla, for some reason, periodically locks up Mozilla in such a way that everytime you click in the address bar, Mozilla locks. xkill is the way to deal with it, but it doesn't fix it, just gets the window out of your way. Rebooting makes the problem go away, until you hit another page using flash that uses that buggy flash plugin. It's not actually Mandrake's fault the flash plugin is buggy.
Anyway, my biggest complaints with 8.2 went away in 9.0, and I've been pretty satisfied with them since then. Except for that flash part, which I blamed on Mandrake until I spent some time with it and figured it out. Now I'm happy again.:) (I should also add that I'm not what you're looking for, I haven't tested any flavor of 9.2, just 9.1. I expect 9.2 to be an improvement, of course)
I'm a Free|OpenBSD user, you need to have a thick skin 'round these parts.;) Thanks for the information, it helped jog my memory.
Isn't BSD dying? I keep reading stories about it...
Jokes aside, I was pretty pissed with slashdot's attitude towards Mandrake. I am generally irritated with it, besides. Mandrake is looking earnestly for a business model built on free software and they really do support the community, so all this player-hating is counterproductive. That said, i don't take it too personally.:)
As a traditional freeloader, I am downloading the new Mandrake, which is available for download, right now. The only catch is, while it's available for download, it's not in ISO format. There is, apparently, a script to take the mirrored stuff and turn it into 3 iso images, and I intend to do that. When I get $60 together, I'll be joining the club. Assuming 9.2 shows itself to be more stable than 9.1, that is.
I've been working with SuSE lately, and not liking this particular distribution (although they do have some really cool shit!). So I've just about made up my mind who I'm going to be working with.:) (For the record, I've been running mostly Mandrake already since 8.2)
My question, then, is why is it good for one OS but bad for another? Is it just a blind, rabid hatred of everything Microsoft? Or is it just habitual complaining?
The complaints would probably cease, to an extent, if Microsoft didn't intentionally break little things in every release and make other attempts to force you to buy an upgrade. Linux distributions, on the other hand, never force you to buy an upgrade. (And when they have tried, they usually get their asses kicked over it. We don't like it at all)
The only time you *need* to upgrade your linux distribution is when you can no longer compile the software you need. Simple as that. With RPM-based distributions, you can usually install rpms from later versions until the distribution had to change basic shit around. It's not a good idea, but you can always get the source for the software and install from that, anyway.
As far as keeping your system patched properly, you don't *need* to upgrade your distribution to do that, but it is usually the easiest way to do it.
Personally, I find that Windows doesn't break a lot of compatibility if you typically use 3rd party software anyway, so the frequency of the releases isn't that bad. Windows as an OS isn't that bad, generally. I don't like it, but it's not that bad. Microsoft as a software vendor is a different story. You can use 3rd party apps in place of almost everything microsoft makes, and then you're not totally stuck in the forced upgrade cycle usually associated with Windows. The short of it is this: If you use a LOT of Microsoft software, you're really forcing the upgrades on yourself. Freedom is available, and it's not time for you (or anyone else) to be responsible for that fact. If you don't want it, fine, don't get it.;) (that last part isn't directed at you specifically)
Slashdot Mirror
Go on, prove him wrong an implement it. Run your script on the very page you're reading now, at -1 threshold. See how long it takes. Sorry. I agree with the grandparent - difficult You admit yourself: "Sometimes it wouldn't make sense" and that's already not good enough.
First, we're not dealing with a large statistical universe, here. We're dealing with the article poster's observation of ONE article, on ONE web page, and it made sense. We don't know that the company's system makes sense on ALL web pages, we only know that it made sense on one. We do know that he never noticed it before, though. But really, how many times do you see crap in articles that don't make sense? Never? How would you know there was a filter in place if the only qualification you had available was "Do all the sentences make sense?"?
Second, I didn't say it wouldn't need a big server or anything. I only said it was easy--programmatically. Implementing it on a network would require some extra doing, and probably some extra hardware. Again, the article poster makes it sound like his fascist company is particularly large, and can probably afford a pretty big box to do the job. They *must* be pretty big if the threat of lawsuits is that severe.
Third, I won't do it. It's one of those situations where "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should". And to prove a point isn't a good enough reason for me.
Naturally you're free to disagree with me all you want. :) I have suggested a way it can be done, and the article poster indicates that it has been done. That doesn't mean it actually has been done, though, so I suppose there's room for disagreement. ;)
Better yet:
C:\Una\Purple Pants>DIR
. . . then the 22,000 files in that directory scroll past so fast I can't see their names. However, if I apply the pipe function at the command prompt like this:
C:\Una\Purple Pants>DIR | more
. . . then the display will show me one screen of files at a time
Like this: (using any adjective noun combination, and noticing the DOS prompt)
Cleanly rewriting text with any "inappropriate" content -- difficult.
Bullshit. Make a list of words in the form of "part of speech"="word". Then you just need any of many available products that break sentences into parts of speech, and check for any "word"s, and replace them with any word from your dictionary that is also "part of speech". A little tweaking and you can even make it appear on topic. Sometimes it wouldn't make sense, but most of the time it would make perfect sense. It's called "Mad Lib".
As a devout anarchist, I'm horribly offended at your lawyers remark. You'll be hearing from my baseball bat.
As a reformed geek, I'm horribly offended by your use of the word "baseball". You'll be hearing from my laptop.
queue, look it up
*sigh*
Idiot. que en espanol = what in english
It's a joke. Laugh, or don't. Corrections not needed.
There are many desireable characteristics of Christianity. Some not so desireable but then, many new sects of Christianity, as well as other religions, have been started to solve these problems and create new ones
The problem with Christianity is not the aggregate of all of its characteristics. IN that, it's just like any other religion: an attempt to dictate morality based on some uber-powerful being(s).
The problem with Christianity is the whole forgiveness principle, original sin, and so forth. The idea that you have to seek forgiveness from one of the previously mentioned uber-powerful being(s), who supposedly died in a very inhumane fashion (but not uncommon, for the time) so that you will feel guilty enough to fall for this tripe. That removes individual, personal responsibility from a person's everyday lives. "Oh gee, I can rape that little girl, as long as I ask for forgiveness" and so forth. Sure, many christians will respond to this and say "YOu only get forgiveness for it *once*", and some will respond and say "No, that's just plain wrong. You can't be forgiven for that". Whatever, dude. The basic problem is using guilt to force you into begging for forgiveness. It's a technique used by child molestors, wife-beaters, and yeah, even Hitler. Recognize that, and the rest of the religion just kind of, well, vanishes.
Now, I realize I poke mostly at Christianity in my ramblings, but it is my opinion that no religion is safe to build law upon. Yeah, I realize that religion has been around as long as civilization, and you know what? What has civilization dones in its long history? Anything good? Besides occasionally correcting the bad, that is. This is a point that could be debated for years and years and years, and no resolution will be found. I happen to think that civilization is generally good, but does a lot of specific bad things, for whatever reasons, not necessarily caused by religion.
My whole point was that you could easily base a system of morality on principles that don't ultimate derive from some uber-being. You can, in fact, build a system of morality based on human principles. Survival, freedom, responsibility, etc. Religion has dictated morality for too many thousands of years under the fiction that "without religion, you can't have morality". Whether or not you need morality to create law is a different debate entirely. :)
Everyone, even kids under 18, have the rights granted in the Bill of Rights.
Just like recent applications of laws have involved putting parents in jail for their kids' crimes (like truancy, and so forth).
Kids are second-class citizens, and it sucks. (No, I'm not a kid anymore)
Actually, the puritans weren't bothered by persecution, they just wanted to be the persecuters.
OBviously, your parent poster has only partially thrown off his American Governmental conditioning and still has a ways to go. A long way, from the look of it. ;)
So the score is 3 laws, 2 pieces of decent advice and 5 strictly religous Judeo-Christian specific edicts. Hardly a "universally accepted" basis of anything in the legal system.
Good job!
I'd like to add, if you don't mind, that the Ten COmmandments were the base for ALL of Moses's laws. The thing is, Moses laws were "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" etc. In that case, there is previous art in the area, from Mesopotamia, although I forget which civilization over which Hammurabi was king, exactly.
So by what principles do you build a Secular Humanist society? What governs morality? What do you hold in highest esteem for such a society to work?
Freedom and personal responsibility.
Examples:
The government can legislate that we do not have the right to kill, because in killing we would be taking away ALL the rights of another person.
The government can legislate that we do not have the right to steal property, because in stealing property we take away the right of the owner of that property to own it.
And so on and so forth. Logically, you can apply the principles of freedom and personal responsibility to establish a non-religious system of law that is just as widespread, corrupt, bloated, and threatening as our existing government. Therefore, you have a suitable replacement.
As much sarcasm as is there, you can also locially apply the principles of freedom and personal responsibility to government and wind up with a beneficial, almost utopian style of government. This you cannot do with Christian principles, or most any other religion's principles, for that matter.
When you're talking about making rules for all to follow, religion has no place. Religion has a place for making your own personal rules to follow (a dubious place, but a place, still).
Take the pledge as a whole, not word by word.
I don't need or want indoctrination. Take your forced and fake Pledge of Allegiance, and your flag. I'm an American and proud of it. Fuck off.
Except that it required an act of Congress to put "In God We Trust" on our money...
I read that as:
It required an act of God to put "In Congress we Trust" on our money...
I've got a better idea for a pledge of allegiance.
I mean, really, to whom do you owe your allegiance?
Whether you agree with this issue or not, you should take offense when somebody tells you how to think.
I think that's all the reply needed. ;)
I forgot to mention that the US is a Republic, which comes from Ancient Greece (long before Christ), and is a form of government used by several other notable civilizations before Christ, such as Rome. Christianity brought us the barbaric monarchies, the Dark Ages, and so forth. In the US, after the Renaissance, it was sought to get away from religion and government entirely. (Yes, yes, I know, the High Priest of Jupiter was a high position in the ROman government)
It is a Christian country and it is defined and based on those assumptions
Nay. The United States was founded on the principles of freedom and personal responsibility. The scapegoat religion of Christianity denies those principles in favor of forgiveness. IN no way is the US founded on Christian principles.
The bug that I can't use my 'puter 'cause my roommate is on my machine playing Frozen Bubble is not a Mandrake issue.]
True, but for a small additional investment, smaller than the price of a computer, you can fix that bug. Just another monitor, keyboard, and mouse. (You might have to go usb for the keyboard and mouse, if you haven't already)
the network que
the network what?
Any advantages of the Dell supercomputer over the G5 setup?
UT is located in Austin, TX.
Dell is located in Austin, TX (home, anyway)
Therefore, the college just spent a fuckload of money that more than likely came from out-of-town, and some of it will stay in town. :)
Hello, this is Erix and I pronounce Windows as Winsucks.
Honey, I fixed the winsuck, so you can get some fresh air in the house, finally.
Honey, some kid knocked a baseball through the big winsuck in the living room.
Honey, I cleaned the kids' fingerprints off all the winsucks in the house.
Honey: What the FUCK are you saying?
Standards are for pussies.
Has Mandrake's stability improved in the 9.x series? I'd especially like to hear from folks who were testing the Cooker versions that became 9.2. Thanks.
YES
As long as you don't install the Flash plugin, that is. The Flash plugin for Mozilla, for some reason, periodically locks up Mozilla in such a way that everytime you click in the address bar, Mozilla locks. xkill is the way to deal with it, but it doesn't fix it, just gets the window out of your way. Rebooting makes the problem go away, until you hit another page using flash that uses that buggy flash plugin. It's not actually Mandrake's fault the flash plugin is buggy.
Anyway, my biggest complaints with 8.2 went away in 9.0, and I've been pretty satisfied with them since then. Except for that flash part, which I blamed on Mandrake until I spent some time with it and figured it out. Now I'm happy again. :) (I should also add that I'm not what you're looking for, I haven't tested any flavor of 9.2, just 9.1. I expect 9.2 to be an improvement, of course)
Yes, but that's a complete PITA if you want to burn a set of ISOs. Even using a recursive wget won't split it up into CD-sized chunks.
I'm gonna try running the MadeCD perl script, included in the download, that's supposed to make all 3 CDs.
I'm a Free|OpenBSD user, you need to have a thick skin 'round these parts. ;) Thanks for the information, it helped jog my memory.
Isn't BSD dying? I keep reading stories about it...
Jokes aside, I was pretty pissed with slashdot's attitude towards Mandrake. I am generally irritated with it, besides. Mandrake is looking earnestly for a business model built on free software and they really do support the community, so all this player-hating is counterproductive. That said, i don't take it too personally. :)
As a traditional freeloader, I am downloading the new Mandrake, which is available for download, right now. The only catch is, while it's available for download, it's not in ISO format. There is, apparently, a script to take the mirrored stuff and turn it into 3 iso images, and I intend to do that. When I get $60 together, I'll be joining the club. Assuming 9.2 shows itself to be more stable than 9.1, that is.
I've been working with SuSE lately, and not liking this particular distribution (although they do have some really cool shit!). So I've just about made up my mind who I'm going to be working with. :) (For the record, I've been running mostly Mandrake already since 8.2)
My question, then, is why is it good for one OS but bad for another? Is it just a blind, rabid hatred of everything Microsoft? Or is it just habitual complaining?
The complaints would probably cease, to an extent, if Microsoft didn't intentionally break little things in every release and make other attempts to force you to buy an upgrade. Linux distributions, on the other hand, never force you to buy an upgrade. (And when they have tried, they usually get their asses kicked over it. We don't like it at all)
The only time you *need* to upgrade your linux distribution is when you can no longer compile the software you need. Simple as that. With RPM-based distributions, you can usually install rpms from later versions until the distribution had to change basic shit around. It's not a good idea, but you can always get the source for the software and install from that, anyway.
As far as keeping your system patched properly, you don't *need* to upgrade your distribution to do that, but it is usually the easiest way to do it.
Personally, I find that Windows doesn't break a lot of compatibility if you typically use 3rd party software anyway, so the frequency of the releases isn't that bad. Windows as an OS isn't that bad, generally. I don't like it, but it's not that bad. Microsoft as a software vendor is a different story. You can use 3rd party apps in place of almost everything microsoft makes, and then you're not totally stuck in the forced upgrade cycle usually associated with Windows. The short of it is this: If you use a LOT of Microsoft software, you're really forcing the upgrades on yourself. Freedom is available, and it's not time for you (or anyone else) to be responsible for that fact. If you don't want it, fine, don't get it. ;) (that last part isn't directed at you specifically)