Make sure you use bs=1M or something larger (maybe 16m?), otherwise you might have the chance to actually shut it off and recover files. dd is slow as hell if you do a drive transaction for every single bit;)
Fuck NVidia. Let them fix their binary blob when it breaks. There's a reason it's open source... so people can have the freedom to do the right thing, rather than half-ass backwards compatibility (I'm look at you, win32, and WoW-64).
Not really. That's why this is an alternative X server. Applications are written to use X library calls (or a higher level library that still boils down to X calls), so a server that implements X will work just fine with all applications that currently use X. The main issue is hardware acceleration.
High enough power, and the laser could vaporize a spot on the junk, and that would cause an outgassing and consequent momentum shift... it's not a completely silly idea.
Glossy is pretty nice for working with media... colors have a much larger working range.
As for an aspect ratio... I can get a bigger laptop screen on my lap on an airplane with a widescreen than with a "normal" one, and I can get a better keyboard with a smaller screen with a widescreen. Both of which trump your "but it doesn't have enough vertical pixels!" argument. Get something 1440x900 or higher, and it's not that bad to work with, really. 1280x800 isn't enough vertical resolution, I'll give you that.
Honestly, I'd go with either Dell or Lenovo. They have had the best support of Linux from my experience, both just the hardware and as a company. Linux is also one of those nice things that keeps most older devices working, so you won't end up where the hardware won't work.
Only thing I caution you on is that I have yet to see anything other than a Toughbook work for more than 4 years. 6-8 years is very, very old age for a laptop unless it is never moved.
I actually have an Intel 4965 in two of my laptops, and an SMC card in my media center, and have yet to have a problem with those. I've only used G networks, but I can transfer files much faster than 1Mb/s. More like 3-4MB/s, especially from one wireless device to a wired one.
I haven't tested 8.10 extensively, but I have yet to have 8.04 to drop a connection or work anything but better than Windows with the wireless connections.
If it doesn't work by default on your laptop, someone did some specific development work on Windows to make it work. The machine almost certainly doesn't conform to ACPI specs. When a computer does, Linux works quite well. Thinkpads are usually very good about it.
Really, the issue is that you have hardware that was designed for Windows. Just like you wouldn't expect Windows to work completely flawlessly on a Mac, why would you expect Linux to work completely flawlessly on a machine that was only ever designed to run Windows? Get a laptop that's designed to run according to open specs, and your problems will go away.
I think there's room for an electronic and a paper record that mirror each other, and use the paper record as the official one in case of discrepancy. There are too many benefits to having an electronic copy of the record immediately to ignore the possibility of using electronic entry and tallying, with a physical "backup".
There are actually machines like that which exist... a paper tape under a window that will show the voter what they voted, so they can match it with the display.
The main issue is that the software is all closed source, as is the process. In an open, properly functioning Democracy, anyone can have a view into the process of how it works. We need to enable that.
Hunting and gathering also "worked". Why change it?
There's no reason to not use electronic voting machines that are properly designed and verified. There is a very good reason to not use BAD electronic voting machines.
Get it close enough, paint the key with a soft paint, let it dry, then stick the key in and try turning it. File off the edges where the paint has been compressed/scratched. Voila!
You don't need an exact copy. You just need a working copy.
The open trunk is kinda handy... but I've taken to using my trunk as a "hidden from view" place, rather than a secure lockbox. The main thing you don't want to do is give someone a reason to think there is anything in the trunk... don't put your laptop in the trunk when you pull up to the restaurant, put it in before you leave to go there. Don't leave valuable stuff in there overnight if you aren't parking in a garage.
And if it really bothers you? Those trunk things are all actuated by a physical wire to my knowledge. Some wire clippers will fix the problem once and for all, and a bit more time with some pliers and wrenches might even make it a reversible modification.
More likely. But on the off chance there's a smart thief, it doesn't hurt to keep them mostly out of sight.
A smart thief will want to be able to get in, do his thing, and then leave without leaving a trace, any reason for anyone to get suspicious. The longer it takes to detect someone, the better off they are.
It's a lot easier to steal shit if no one has any idea you were there in the first place.
Neighbor: "db32's on vacation... what are you doing here?" Thief: "Oh, he gave me a key to watch the house, see?" Neighbor: "Oh, alright then."
Thief proceeds to park in the garage, load up car with everything, and leave, with days (or weeks) of lead time to unload stolen goods.
It's not a bad idea to keep your keys from being photographed. People will use a much more difficult way of breaking in if it gives them a better chance of not getting caught.
Tolkein never tried to stop anyone from using elves and wizards... but what you're arguing means that things like Disney's version of Snow White would never be made without copious investment from someone with very deep pockets. They'll only invest in a "sure thing" which is why you see the glut of insane rehashings any more of any successful property. He had his chance to profit from the work (and he did quite well with it). Why then should his stories be locked up from the rest of society? We tell the stories of Goldilocks, Snow White, even Romeo and Juliet or The Odyssey as part of our cultural heritage. Those are outright copies, yet still add something new, something different, they add to our culture. Yet your statements advocate doing away with that.
To take a more modern example, look at J.K. Rowling. Has she profited from Harry Potter in a short time? I should say so. The world has latched on to the stories she created, the characters have captured imaginations. Which is wonderful. But that is the point... she should not be allowed to control other people's imaginations. She should control her stories, make a profit from them if she can, and then they should be given to the rest of the world so that the world can profit from them. She built her stories on the backs of those who came before her, whether she admits it or not. Nothing is ever completely novel.
Assuming I did have copyright over a particularly good garden design, I would not like it if a competitor (especially a large company) outright copied it initially. But if I couldn't publicize and sell it after, say, 14 years, then they should have every right to do so. As well as any other person who wanted to. Them copying it does NOT make me any less the original creator of the design, and if it gets popular, people will want to come to me for new designs, assuming I do things right. It's free advertising. Just like I couldn't claim the Mona Lisa as my own work, even if I made an identical copy of it, everyone would know it was Leonardo daVinci who painted it, and if he were alive, it would be HIS work that would be in demand, not mine. Unless someone just wanted a cheap copy of an original, which means they wouldn't be part of the market for the original in the first place.
As for your publisher example, if that happens, then the author has no business being in the business of writing. That's what contracts and so on are for... you don't just throw your novel to a publisher and hope for the best. You need to protect your investment by specifying dates, advertising, shipping, etc. in return for providing the manuscript. Provide parts of the manuscript as an example of the work, rather than the whole of the work, and provide the whole of the work upon the signing of a contract that is agreed on by both parties. Hell, in this day and age, anyone can be a publisher, so there's no excuse for getting taken advantage of.
You have some very strong emotional arguments. But that is all they are. Emotional. They are not based on anything more than "But I don't WANT that!". They are not for the good of society, only for the good of a few specific creators who by luck or design happen to get famous.
If I dig a ditch today, do I keep profiting from it every time water flows through it? If I build a house, do I get a cut of the sale every time it's sold after I sell it the first time?
The point of copyright is to encourage the creation of arts and the advancement of culture. Giving an artist a gravy train does not encourage that advancement. Nor does preventing other people from building on that work. No creative works are created in a vacuum... they're all built on other creative works. Elves are not unique to Tolkien. Wizards aren't unique to Rowling. They built upon lots of previous work to get to what they have. And now they (and their families) have the gall to try to prevent future artists from doing the same thing?
From that, I think it is perfectly OK for publishers to be the only ones to profit after copyright expires. After all, ANY publisher can print the book. And the author could have an official version... I'd buy that one if I were a consumer looking to buy the best quality version, or the "correct" one. The author already made the artistic contribution and profited from it under copyright... if he wants further profit from artistic endeavors, he needs to create more artistic works. Copyright is societal contract of protecting an idea while spreading it. If you don't want people to copy it, don't tell anyone your idea. There is no natural right to tell people to not think your idea. It's purely societal, so it should be for the benefit of society that it exists, not a select few "artists" who then drive all competition out and lessen the total amount of art created.
Temporarily. Damascus Steel and Chinese bell-casting are just neat stories now, though. Damascus steel is only known as legend... we don't have any examples of it, so we can't do any testing. We only have stories of how amazing it was... almost sounds like myth, or a religion;)
Especially given the breadth of information available, there's little chance anything will be lost. And if it is, we can find it again.
And people have said that as I have kids (got 'em) and get older, I'll start believing in God, too. Still hasn't happened.
Perpetual copyright is bad for society. People older than you (and much smarter) realize that unlimited copyright is detrimental to society because it limits the sharing of ideas. Limited copyright is necessary for some people to be encouraged to create. But creation happens even absent copyright, so it's clearly not something that's required for creation of art and literature.
If you can't copy, you can't create. Hell, just your COBOL editor is copying from dozens of other editors. If those ideas were locked up under copyright ("a white text box", "split screens"), you wouldn't have a product. Was your first program not "Hello World" in some form or another? Oh, wait... you copied that, too. And from there, you built up other things. Why would you deny that opportunity to other people?
Copyright exists to allow people to profit from novel works... locking them up perpetually stagnates creativity. If you don't get that, you're either stupid or just ignorant.
Don't be stupid. That's why copyright DOES exist. It's not a perpetual right... it's a limited one. IF you can't profit immediately after the creation of it (note I said that in the previous post), then you did something wrong. You should never get perpetual rights. It's bad for society.
Slashdot Mirror
Make sure you use bs=1M or something larger (maybe 16m?), otherwise you might have the chance to actually shut it off and recover files. dd is slow as hell if you do a drive transaction for every single bit ;)
Fuck NVidia. Let them fix their binary blob when it breaks. There's a reason it's open source... so people can have the freedom to do the right thing, rather than half-ass backwards compatibility (I'm look at you, win32, and WoW-64).
Not really. That's why this is an alternative X server. Applications are written to use X library calls (or a higher level library that still boils down to X calls), so a server that implements X will work just fine with all applications that currently use X. The main issue is hardware acceleration.
duct tape!
High enough power, and the laser could vaporize a spot on the junk, and that would cause an outgassing and consequent momentum shift... it's not a completely silly idea.
Glossy is pretty nice for working with media... colors have a much larger working range.
As for an aspect ratio... I can get a bigger laptop screen on my lap on an airplane with a widescreen than with a "normal" one, and I can get a better keyboard with a smaller screen with a widescreen. Both of which trump your "but it doesn't have enough vertical pixels!" argument. Get something 1440x900 or higher, and it's not that bad to work with, really. 1280x800 isn't enough vertical resolution, I'll give you that.
Honestly, I'd go with either Dell or Lenovo. They have had the best support of Linux from my experience, both just the hardware and as a company. Linux is also one of those nice things that keeps most older devices working, so you won't end up where the hardware won't work.
Only thing I caution you on is that I have yet to see anything other than a Toughbook work for more than 4 years. 6-8 years is very, very old age for a laptop unless it is never moved.
DDR RAM is still SDRAM.
I actually have an Intel 4965 in two of my laptops, and an SMC card in my media center, and have yet to have a problem with those. I've only used G networks, but I can transfer files much faster than 1Mb/s. More like 3-4MB/s, especially from one wireless device to a wired one.
I haven't tested 8.10 extensively, but I have yet to have 8.04 to drop a connection or work anything but better than Windows with the wireless connections.
If it doesn't work by default on your laptop, someone did some specific development work on Windows to make it work. The machine almost certainly doesn't conform to ACPI specs. When a computer does, Linux works quite well. Thinkpads are usually very good about it.
Really, the issue is that you have hardware that was designed for Windows. Just like you wouldn't expect Windows to work completely flawlessly on a Mac, why would you expect Linux to work completely flawlessly on a machine that was only ever designed to run Windows? Get a laptop that's designed to run according to open specs, and your problems will go away.
I think there's room for an electronic and a paper record that mirror each other, and use the paper record as the official one in case of discrepancy. There are too many benefits to having an electronic copy of the record immediately to ignore the possibility of using electronic entry and tallying, with a physical "backup".
There are actually machines like that which exist... a paper tape under a window that will show the voter what they voted, so they can match it with the display.
The main issue is that the software is all closed source, as is the process. In an open, properly functioning Democracy, anyone can have a view into the process of how it works. We need to enable that.
Hunting and gathering also "worked". Why change it?
There's no reason to not use electronic voting machines that are properly designed and verified. There is a very good reason to not use BAD electronic voting machines.
Get it close enough, paint the key with a soft paint, let it dry, then stick the key in and try turning it. File off the edges where the paint has been compressed/scratched. Voila!
You don't need an exact copy. You just need a working copy.
The open trunk is kinda handy... but I've taken to using my trunk as a "hidden from view" place, rather than a secure lockbox. The main thing you don't want to do is give someone a reason to think there is anything in the trunk... don't put your laptop in the trunk when you pull up to the restaurant, put it in before you leave to go there. Don't leave valuable stuff in there overnight if you aren't parking in a garage.
And if it really bothers you? Those trunk things are all actuated by a physical wire to my knowledge. Some wire clippers will fix the problem once and for all, and a bit more time with some pliers and wrenches might even make it a reversible modification.
More likely. But on the off chance there's a smart thief, it doesn't hurt to keep them mostly out of sight.
A smart thief will want to be able to get in, do his thing, and then leave without leaving a trace, any reason for anyone to get suspicious. The longer it takes to detect someone, the better off they are.
It's a lot easier to steal shit if no one has any idea you were there in the first place.
Neighbor: "db32's on vacation... what are you doing here?"
Thief: "Oh, he gave me a key to watch the house, see?"
Neighbor: "Oh, alright then."
Thief proceeds to park in the garage, load up car with everything, and leave, with days (or weeks) of lead time to unload stolen goods.
It's not a bad idea to keep your keys from being photographed. People will use a much more difficult way of breaking in if it gives them a better chance of not getting caught.
Hopefully your key never runs low on juice when it's raining out...
I find it offensive to represent one person's work as someone else's, especially when one is machine-made and another is hand-made.
Tolkein never tried to stop anyone from using elves and wizards... but what you're arguing means that things like Disney's version of Snow White would never be made without copious investment from someone with very deep pockets. They'll only invest in a "sure thing" which is why you see the glut of insane rehashings any more of any successful property. He had his chance to profit from the work (and he did quite well with it). Why then should his stories be locked up from the rest of society? We tell the stories of Goldilocks, Snow White, even Romeo and Juliet or The Odyssey as part of our cultural heritage. Those are outright copies, yet still add something new, something different, they add to our culture. Yet your statements advocate doing away with that.
To take a more modern example, look at J.K. Rowling. Has she profited from Harry Potter in a short time? I should say so. The world has latched on to the stories she created, the characters have captured imaginations. Which is wonderful. But that is the point... she should not be allowed to control other people's imaginations. She should control her stories, make a profit from them if she can, and then they should be given to the rest of the world so that the world can profit from them. She built her stories on the backs of those who came before her, whether she admits it or not. Nothing is ever completely novel.
Assuming I did have copyright over a particularly good garden design, I would not like it if a competitor (especially a large company) outright copied it initially. But if I couldn't publicize and sell it after, say, 14 years, then they should have every right to do so. As well as any other person who wanted to. Them copying it does NOT make me any less the original creator of the design, and if it gets popular, people will want to come to me for new designs, assuming I do things right. It's free advertising. Just like I couldn't claim the Mona Lisa as my own work, even if I made an identical copy of it, everyone would know it was Leonardo daVinci who painted it, and if he were alive, it would be HIS work that would be in demand, not mine. Unless someone just wanted a cheap copy of an original, which means they wouldn't be part of the market for the original in the first place.
As for your publisher example, if that happens, then the author has no business being in the business of writing. That's what contracts and so on are for... you don't just throw your novel to a publisher and hope for the best. You need to protect your investment by specifying dates, advertising, shipping, etc. in return for providing the manuscript. Provide parts of the manuscript as an example of the work, rather than the whole of the work, and provide the whole of the work upon the signing of a contract that is agreed on by both parties. Hell, in this day and age, anyone can be a publisher, so there's no excuse for getting taken advantage of.
You have some very strong emotional arguments. But that is all they are. Emotional. They are not based on anything more than "But I don't WANT that!". They are not for the good of society, only for the good of a few specific creators who by luck or design happen to get famous.
If I dig a ditch today, do I keep profiting from it every time water flows through it? If I build a house, do I get a cut of the sale every time it's sold after I sell it the first time?
The point of copyright is to encourage the creation of arts and the advancement of culture. Giving an artist a gravy train does not encourage that advancement. Nor does preventing other people from building on that work. No creative works are created in a vacuum... they're all built on other creative works. Elves are not unique to Tolkien. Wizards aren't unique to Rowling. They built upon lots of previous work to get to what they have. And now they (and their families) have the gall to try to prevent future artists from doing the same thing?
From that, I think it is perfectly OK for publishers to be the only ones to profit after copyright expires. After all, ANY publisher can print the book. And the author could have an official version... I'd buy that one if I were a consumer looking to buy the best quality version, or the "correct" one. The author already made the artistic contribution and profited from it under copyright... if he wants further profit from artistic endeavors, he needs to create more artistic works. Copyright is societal contract of protecting an idea while spreading it. If you don't want people to copy it, don't tell anyone your idea. There is no natural right to tell people to not think your idea. It's purely societal, so it should be for the benefit of society that it exists, not a select few "artists" who then drive all competition out and lessen the total amount of art created.
You can't win all the time :(
It's like the 80's except better since the software is open-source and you aren't locked into the whims of the supplier!
Everybody wins! Yay!!!
Temporarily. Damascus Steel and Chinese bell-casting are just neat stories now, though. Damascus steel is only known as legend... we don't have any examples of it, so we can't do any testing. We only have stories of how amazing it was... almost sounds like myth, or a religion ;)
Especially given the breadth of information available, there's little chance anything will be lost. And if it is, we can find it again.
And people have said that as I have kids (got 'em) and get older, I'll start believing in God, too. Still hasn't happened.
Perpetual copyright is bad for society. People older than you (and much smarter) realize that unlimited copyright is detrimental to society because it limits the sharing of ideas. Limited copyright is necessary for some people to be encouraged to create. But creation happens even absent copyright, so it's clearly not something that's required for creation of art and literature.
If you can't copy, you can't create. Hell, just your COBOL editor is copying from dozens of other editors. If those ideas were locked up under copyright ("a white text box", "split screens"), you wouldn't have a product. Was your first program not "Hello World" in some form or another? Oh, wait... you copied that, too. And from there, you built up other things. Why would you deny that opportunity to other people?
Copyright exists to allow people to profit from novel works... locking them up perpetually stagnates creativity. If you don't get that, you're either stupid or just ignorant.
Don't be stupid. That's why copyright DOES exist. It's not a perpetual right... it's a limited one. IF you can't profit immediately after the creation of it (note I said that in the previous post), then you did something wrong. You should never get perpetual rights. It's bad for society.