Quickly pronouncing ASUTTRRUGPHM SE PM three times in a row is the last trial of Microsoft Professional certification, and the one
that counts for 90% of the total score.
Usually? As in half the time or more often? You are grossly misinformed.
For states like CA and MA, where most of the pot you can buy is local-ish,
you are just dead wrong. The converse statement (cocaine dealers are usually
pot dealers) would be a lot more plausible.
What's the most ironic about drug laws is that the laws cause the very social problems they purport to solve.
But it is only with open source that you can even copy someone else's code and do it your own way.
You need more than just open source for that. You really do need the freedoms 0-3 in order to participate with
your one voice in a democratic system: to take a communal work, improve it, and make the improved version public.
In a world without copyright and patents, "open source" would be synonymous with "free software", but at the moment
they are utterly different, and your democracy argument only makes sense if the software is FOSS, not merely OS.
Oh no no no. OBVIOUSLY, if aliens show up tomorrow, after having flown countless light years and having built a highly advanced macro-society the size of a galaxy, it is OBVIOUSLY humans who will be calling the shots. They may have bombs million times more powerful than a supernova and they may be able to derive their energy from teleporting, but surely we will be able to outsmart them, with all that we learned from Arnold movies and sitcoms.
What if malware figures out the PRNG state (so that it can fill in spaces) and then moves itself around while the checksum is being computed? This whole thing reminds me of Core War.
Why in the world we won't go back to a system with RAM access control burned in hardware? Keep the process table and the memory allocation table outside of RAM, and make it impossible to access other apps' pages. There must be a downside to it I cannot see.
As an aside, I do want to believe in abiogenesis. If life can arise from chemistry, then it almost certainly did so on other planets with similar conditions, and we have much to explore.
Except that my scenario is actually rational: I was describing what we realistically could have done if we wanted to populate other star systems. There is no stretch to suppose that someone is already doing it.
I mean some relatively straight-forward extrapolations of humans shows *us* colonizing the galaxy in a few million years.
This is an expensive proposition. In light of our current understanding of physics, we would have to build a very expensive
embryo-ship that could travel for (hundreds of?) thousands of years just to reach the next door neighbor. We will need to put everything
that we need there: the entire ecosystem will have to be present, at least in seed form. We have options: if we are willing to wait, we just
ship the DNA information and a small army of self-reproducing terraformers. If we don't want to wait millions of years while
a planet of choice is terraformed, we will have to ship a complete space station that can survive on starlight and interplanetary debris.
I cannot even imagine how much fuel you will need to drag this baby out of the Sun's gravity well.
The right approach, I think, would be a combination of the two options. Take nearby systems right away, and send super-light
embryos to as many of the other ones as you can afford. The latter should carry enough brainpower to detect habitable planets,
and bring some sturdy terraformers. Something like algae. Sprinkle it on planets and wait.
May be that is what happened to our system:) In which case someone will eventually show up and ask for rent.
The Internet's future is not Web 2.0 or 200.0 but the post-Web, where time instead of space is the organizing principle — instead of many stained-glass windows, instead of information laid out in space, like vegetables at a market — the Net will be many streams of information flowing through time. The Cybersphere as a whole equals every stream in the Internet blended together: the whole world telling its own story. (But the world's own story is full of private information — and so, unfortunately, no human being is allowed to hear it.)
The future of the Internet is information streams blending together? What the fudge does this even mean?
Hey, if you like this guy, you will probably enjoy reading this as well.
You may be right about average, but there is something you guys can do to level the playing field. From the Wiki:
Public school systems are supported by a combination of local, state, and federal government funding. Because a large portion of school revenues come from local property taxes, public schools vary widely in the resources they have available per student. Class size also varies significantly from one district to another.
Public education quality would be much more uniform if only the federal taxes paid for it. No one will ever make a system where everyone gets a stellar education, but at least you could have one that doesn't selectively shaft entire strata of the society.
Chuck Norris has no need for nukes. Each life is but a hair on Chuck's mighty chin. When he needs to get rid of an adversary, he simply trims his beard.
They can try to control it all they want. They will especially try to lock down the Web (HTTP part) so that they can control what gets publicized there. It can be done, and probably will be done. But the core ability of the Internet is not in displaying blog pages. It is in allowing any two computers to establish a real-time, peer-to-peer connection. Remove that and you destroy the Internet. IMHO, the chances of anyone tampering with that are zero. We have some difficulty in promptly transitioning to IPv6: a largely compatible, more scalable, and more secure protocol. Now imagine someone tries to replace TCP/IP with a protocol that does not allow networked hosts to connect. It's a non-starter. In fact, we have such a protocol: IPv4 with its NAT goodness is exactly the kind of faulty design that creates extra friction when you try to talk peer-to-peer. The content providers are very happy about this boon because it makes a critical mass of consumer devices into receivers, to which they can beam ads and sponsored opinions. But even with all that opposition, the forces that are responsible for communication infrastructure (looking at you, Comcast) are preparing to ditch IPv4 in favor of a better protocol.
As long as we have peer-to-peer connectivity, we have all but eliminated friction for disseminating information (compared to the pre-Internet situation). A good idea, no matter how much despised by powerful corporations, the government, or even Internet Service Providers, will find its way around the globe before they even know it's out there. At an attempt of suppression, there is always a fair chance that a good idea will Streissand itself back into life.
We do need to worry about certain things though. We need to make sure that we continue having an option of using free hardware and free software on the Internet. If we loose that, only then can the censorship really begin. We won't be worse off if some consumers or businesses keep using Microsoft or Apple - it's their own funeral - but we must insist that the government switch to free software. The non-free software will always waste our computing cycles or do things outright wrong just to further the publisher's agenda, and we do not need that, unless we, the people, are the publisher. This is even more true for the software used in scientific research. We should not accept scientific results from any source, no matter how credible, unless the software they used is free, and anyone in academia can review the software, the data, and the process, and, given enough resources, carry out the same computation and get the same result.
We should also develop a peer-to-peer communication protocol that does not suck. We need a kind of XMPP, but with mandated peer-to-peer encryption. Off-the-record messaging seems like a step in the right direction.
Crowbar and hammer? I am unable to see the analogy. Windows 7 to any GNU/Linux distribution is like a crowbar to a garage full of power tools. The garage may be equipped with an inferior crowbar, but anyone who just needs the work done will be insane to go with Windows: a mighty fine crowbar that comes with a spy camera and may stop working at a moment's notice for no other reason than Microsoft telling it so.
I'll just pretend that your OSA is also a free software advocate.
Big Corporation: We use the best tool for the job, be it a free tool or a pay for use one.
Open Source Advocate: No, you should always use open source.
Because free software is always the best tool for the job. Because the user
knows what it does.
BC: No, sometimes commercial apps are better than the free alternative.
This is an unfounded statement. I cannot compare software on merits unless
I know what the software does. Windows 7 may seem to be a speed demon, but that
is irrelevant if it reports my habits and Microsoft or FBI can root it at will.
More dramatically, any piece software that aspires to be used for science is a
scam, unless it is free. If it is proprietary, then it does not have to suffer the
peer review process, which makes it unsuitable for science.
I wonder how much better they would perform if each correct response was earning them $50. Some people just won't follow even the most basic kind of instructions unless they are strongly and personally motivated.
3.5? That was a superior system. 4.*, though, is a joke. I keep it around as kUbuntu and check on it regularly, and it's just weird. And I am not talking about the bugs specific to kUbuntu, either: it feels heavier, configuration options are lacking (you cannot say that for 3.5!), and all these sidebars and widgets don't make a lick of sense to me. I am still thinking about going back to something like WindowMaker, though, so my tastes are pretty poor guidance for a newcomer.
Which leads us to consider the real motive for this "feature". I have to guess they call it
market research, but a customer should simply regard as snooping.
It really blows my mind that people use an OS which can be rooted and/or remotely disabled by
a private US company, a convicted monopolist, any time it is connected to the Internet.
The official upgrade cost is around $100. 17% of the cost of a new Mac Mini.
That is hardly Mozilla's problem. People who get suckered into buying a proprietary OS have to realize
that they will have to buy every upgrade if they are to run the latest software.
This projects strikes me a extremely elitist. I want to see a robot driving a
huge bus full of robot passengers doing their regular robot things, like
optimizing their energy efficiency, updating their belief systems from a trusted
repository, and compressing old files.
Another advantage of this approach is the ability to "hide" useful data inside the pad.
If more people used OTPs, we wouldn't have this "hand over your keys" nonsense in courts.
Take all of my data. If you cannot understand it, tough luck.
I've seen batteries decline, though, exactly in this way, sometimes within a year or so of purchase.
If you had to wait for a month, I wonder if it is just a coincidence. Notice that others in TFS did not
buy a new laptop with W7, but upgraded, so they must have had their laptops for several months.
And it totally explains why it does not get fixed when they go back to the previous system.
May be we should just stick with the simplest explanation until more data is available. But then,
I don't use Microsoft's software at all, so I am more inclined to just sit on the sidelines at watch it burn,
demolition derby style.
Slashdot Mirror
FUN FACT:
Quickly pronouncing ASUTTRRUGPHM SE PM three times in a row is the last trial of Microsoft Professional certification, and the one that counts for 90% of the total score.
the people who sell pot usually also sell cocaine
Usually? As in half the time or more often? You are grossly misinformed. For states like CA and MA, where most of the pot you can buy is local-ish, you are just dead wrong. The converse statement (cocaine dealers are usually pot dealers) would be a lot more plausible.
What's the most ironic about drug laws is that the laws cause the very social problems they purport to solve.
I agree completely.
But it is only with open source that you can even copy someone else's code and do it your own way.
You need more than just open source for that. You really do need the freedoms 0-3 in order to participate with your one voice in a democratic system: to take a communal work, improve it, and make the improved version public.
In a world without copyright and patents, "open source" would be synonymous with "free software", but at the moment they are utterly different, and your democracy argument only makes sense if the software is FOSS, not merely OS.
Oh no no no. OBVIOUSLY, if aliens show up tomorrow, after having flown countless light years and having built a highly advanced macro-society the size of a galaxy, it is OBVIOUSLY humans who will be calling the shots. They may have bombs million times more powerful than a supernova and they may be able to derive their energy from teleporting, but surely we will be able to outsmart them, with all that we learned from Arnold movies and sitcoms.
2. Unplug your Windows box. Guaranteed 100% effective. The drawback is that apps won't run. ;)
This seems to be backwards. Most apps will run OK, but you may still get infected via USB storage (gotta love that autorun :).
What if malware figures out the PRNG state (so that it can fill in spaces) and then moves itself around while the checksum is being computed? This whole thing reminds me of Core War.
Why in the world we won't go back to a system with RAM access control burned in hardware? Keep the process table and the memory allocation table outside of RAM, and make it impossible to access other apps' pages. There must be a downside to it I cannot see.
As an aside, I do want to believe in abiogenesis. If life can arise from chemistry, then it almost certainly did so on other planets with similar conditions, and we have much to explore.
Except that my scenario is actually rational: I was describing what we realistically could have done if we wanted to populate other star systems. There is no stretch to suppose that someone is already doing it.
I mean some relatively straight-forward extrapolations of humans shows *us* colonizing the galaxy in a few million years.
This is an expensive proposition. In light of our current understanding of physics, we would have to build a very expensive embryo-ship that could travel for (hundreds of?) thousands of years just to reach the next door neighbor. We will need to put everything that we need there: the entire ecosystem will have to be present, at least in seed form. We have options: if we are willing to wait, we just ship the DNA information and a small army of self-reproducing terraformers. If we don't want to wait millions of years while a planet of choice is terraformed, we will have to ship a complete space station that can survive on starlight and interplanetary debris. I cannot even imagine how much fuel you will need to drag this baby out of the Sun's gravity well.
The right approach, I think, would be a combination of the two options. Take nearby systems right away, and send super-light embryos to as many of the other ones as you can afford. The latter should carry enough brainpower to detect habitable planets, and bring some sturdy terraformers. Something like algae. Sprinkle it on planets and wait.
May be that is what happened to our system :) In which case someone will eventually show up and ask for rent.
The Internet's future is not Web 2.0 or 200.0 but the post-Web, where time instead of space is the organizing principle — instead of many stained-glass windows, instead of information laid out in space, like vegetables at a market — the Net will be many streams of information flowing through time. The Cybersphere as a whole equals every stream in the Internet blended together: the whole world telling its own story. (But the world's own story is full of private information — and so, unfortunately, no human being is allowed to hear it.)
The future of the Internet is information streams blending together? What the fudge does this even mean?
Hey, if you like this guy, you will probably enjoy reading this as well.
You may be right about average, but there is something you guys can do to level the playing field. From the Wiki:
Public school systems are supported by a combination of local, state, and federal government funding. Because a large portion of school revenues come from local property taxes, public schools vary widely in the resources they have available per student. Class size also varies significantly from one district to another.
Public education quality would be much more uniform if only the federal taxes paid for it. No one will ever make a system where everyone gets a stellar education, but at least you could have one that doesn't selectively shaft entire strata of the society.
Chuck Norris has no need for nukes. Each life is but a hair on Chuck's mighty chin. When he needs to get rid of an adversary, he simply trims his beard.
They can try to control it all they want. They will especially try to lock down the Web (HTTP part) so that they can control what gets publicized there. It can be done, and probably will be done. But the core ability of the Internet is not in displaying blog pages. It is in allowing any two computers to establish a real-time, peer-to-peer connection. Remove that and you destroy the Internet. IMHO, the chances of anyone tampering with that are zero. We have some difficulty in promptly transitioning to IPv6: a largely compatible, more scalable, and more secure protocol. Now imagine someone tries to replace TCP/IP with a protocol that does not allow networked hosts to connect. It's a non-starter. In fact, we have such a protocol: IPv4 with its NAT goodness is exactly the kind of faulty design that creates extra friction when you try to talk peer-to-peer. The content providers are very happy about this boon because it makes a critical mass of consumer devices into receivers, to which they can beam ads and sponsored opinions. But even with all that opposition, the forces that are responsible for communication infrastructure (looking at you, Comcast) are preparing to ditch IPv4 in favor of a better protocol.
As long as we have peer-to-peer connectivity, we have all but eliminated friction for disseminating information (compared to the pre-Internet situation). A good idea, no matter how much despised by powerful corporations, the government, or even Internet Service Providers, will find its way around the globe before they even know it's out there. At an attempt of suppression, there is always a fair chance that a good idea will Streissand itself back into life.
We do need to worry about certain things though. We need to make sure that we continue having an option of using free hardware and free software on the Internet. If we loose that, only then can the censorship really begin. We won't be worse off if some consumers or businesses keep using Microsoft or Apple - it's their own funeral - but we must insist that the government switch to free software. The non-free software will always waste our computing cycles or do things outright wrong just to further the publisher's agenda, and we do not need that, unless we, the people, are the publisher. This is even more true for the software used in scientific research. We should not accept scientific results from any source, no matter how credible, unless the software they used is free, and anyone in academia can review the software, the data, and the process, and, given enough resources, carry out the same computation and get the same result.
We should also develop a peer-to-peer communication protocol that does not suck. We need a kind of XMPP, but with mandated peer-to-peer encryption. Off-the-record messaging seems like a step in the right direction.
Crowbar and hammer? I am unable to see the analogy. Windows 7 to any GNU/Linux distribution is like a crowbar to a garage full of power tools. The garage may be equipped with an inferior crowbar, but anyone who just needs the work done will be insane to go with Windows: a mighty fine crowbar that comes with a spy camera and may stop working at a moment's notice for no other reason than Microsoft telling it so.
Big Corporation: We use the best tool for the job, be it a free tool or a pay for use one.
Open Source Advocate: No, you should always use open source.
Because free software is always the best tool for the job. Because the user knows what it does.
BC: No, sometimes commercial apps are better than the free alternative.
This is an unfounded statement. I cannot compare software on merits unless I know what the software does. Windows 7 may seem to be a speed demon, but that is irrelevant if it reports my habits and Microsoft or FBI can root it at will. More dramatically, any piece software that aspires to be used for science is a scam, unless it is free. If it is proprietary, then it does not have to suffer the peer review process, which makes it unsuitable for science.
keeping in mind that I know what cock tastes like.
From now on, I will read every comment of yours with that mental image lodged in my brain like some kind of rainbow crayon.
I wonder how much better they would perform if each correct response was earning them $50. Some people just won't follow even the most basic kind of instructions unless they are strongly and personally motivated.
3.5? That was a superior system. 4.*, though, is a joke. I keep it around as kUbuntu and check on it regularly, and it's just weird. And I am not talking about the bugs specific to kUbuntu, either: it feels heavier, configuration options are lacking (you cannot say that for 3.5!), and all these sidebars and widgets don't make a lick of sense to me. I am still thinking about going back to something like WindowMaker, though, so my tastes are pretty poor guidance for a newcomer.
Which leads us to consider the real motive for this "feature". I have to guess they call it market research, but a customer should simply regard as snooping.
It really blows my mind that people use an OS which can be rooted and/or remotely disabled by a private US company, a convicted monopolist, any time it is connected to the Internet.
I can do a perfect job if I get to chose out of one. I will have to.
I wonder what is going to happen after we hit the population ceiling for Earth.
The official upgrade cost is around $100. 17% of the cost of a new Mac Mini.
That is hardly Mozilla's problem. People who get suckered into buying a proprietary OS have to realize that they will have to buy every upgrade if they are to run the latest software.
This projects strikes me a extremely elitist. I want to see a robot driving a huge bus full of robot passengers doing their regular robot things, like optimizing their energy efficiency, updating their belief systems from a trusted repository, and compressing old files.
Another advantage of this approach is the ability to "hide" useful data inside the pad. If more people used OTPs, we wouldn't have this "hand over your keys" nonsense in courts. Take all of my data. If you cannot understand it, tough luck.
I've seen batteries decline, though, exactly in this way, sometimes within a year or so of purchase. If you had to wait for a month, I wonder if it is just a coincidence. Notice that others in TFS did not buy a new laptop with W7, but upgraded, so they must have had their laptops for several months. And it totally explains why it does not get fixed when they go back to the previous system.
May be we should just stick with the simplest explanation until more data is available. But then, I don't use Microsoft's software at all, so I am more inclined to just sit on the sidelines at watch it burn, demolition derby style.