By no means can two perfect copies of people be allowed to exist at the same time. It would rip apart the very fabric of space time as we know it. Therefore...
Just a thought, but maybe we don't know the fabric of spacetime as well as we like to think we do, hmm?
It is kind of like getting a job. Most people do not get jobs through classified ads, job sites or cold calling. Most get jobs through networking. Same with finding a new girlfriend.
Exacly what industry are you in? I never received a job through "networking", I got them by flooding the market with my resume until I get a job interview and then quietly explaining that they should hire me because I'm the best bloody programmer they're likely to find in a very long time.
If I had to rely on my "networking" skills to find a job I'd be living under a bridge by now.
... start with an empty Emacs buffer and try to just write a program from scratch, and they'd have to keep looking up syntax and library calls in the manual all the time.
So, how do you think they're gonna convince all those people who already own SD DVD players to give them up for a HD unit, considering that most people a) don't have the equipment to display HD content any differently from SD, b) can make and play (and download!) copied SD discs without any real difficulty, and c) already consider SD DVD to be the best quality they're ever likely to see anyway?
and the faint glimmer of hope... that something wonderful might actually happen to them
Something wonderful is happening to them: They are on T.V. and, based on this discussion alone, are now international celebrities. What more could a stupid person hope for?
He's also a Tasmanian, which, by and large, means his opinion is fucking irrelevant. I mean, until just a few years ago it was still illegal for two adult men to have sex with each other in Tasmania, and the law was only overthrown through the invervention of an international human rights organisation.
This isn't a troll, just an honest reflection of Australian politics from the perspective of mainland Australians (Hell, some of my best friends are Tasmanians. Well, ex-Tasmanians, anyway).
Check out this link for more information about Tasmania's contribution to Australian politics.
"The Defendant shall please rise: For your dastardly crime of the Murder of one of our nation's Fine and Upstanding Recording Company officers, I hereby sentence you to the maximum penalty available to me under the Law: You shall be taken from this place to, er, another place, whereupon you shall be strapped to a gurney and the music of Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera shall be forcibly played to you until such time as your brain has been turned to Apple Sauce. And My God Have Mercy On Your Soul ('Cause The RIAA Sure As Hell Wont.)"
So what's your position on the whole "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre issue?
That would depend on if there actually was a fire or not. In any case, "free speech" does not mean "freedom from individual responsibility." Just because one is perfecly free to shout "FIRE!" does not mean one should.
Let me put it another way: I would never shout "FIRE!" in a theater unless there actually was a fire, even if there was no fear of punishment or recrimination. That's personal responsibility, and without it any attempt to create a free, liberal and democratic society is just a complete waste of time.
Absolute freedom from restrictions means that any for-profit company could do whatever they wanted with any open-source software and no one could say the first thing about it.
Yes, that's because corperations do not practice individual nor personal responsibility. If they did, there would be no need for such a clause. Once again, if it was my for-profit company, I would give back at least as much as I took (more in fact), regardless of the licence conditions, simply because I realise that the free software system only works if everybody excercises personal responsibility.
Shall we agree to respectfully disagree?
Of course! That's what free speech is all about:-)
All Indians don't work for US outsourcing tech companies. In fact, a very small minority of us do.
That may be so, but don't forget that the huge population difference between India and the US means that even if a "small minority" of you are involved in outsourcing, it is still enough to displace a significant portion of the US workforce. Not that this is a bad thing; it might even encourage them to get of their lazy, fat arses (yeah, you heard me!) and vote for someone who actually gives a shit about something other than taking over the world one oil-rich Middle-Eastern nation at a time.
However, I think that it's a huge jump from "you can say whatever you want, you just can't say it wherever you want" to "there's no free speech in America" as is so often claimed here.
Hmm, call me naive, but I would think that "free speech" is an all-or-nothing concept: It's either available everywhere, universally and without restriction, or it simply isn't "free speech."
I mean, consider the often used correlation between "free software" and "free speech." If there are restrictions on the software that only allow it to be "free" in certain circumstances (e.g. only if it's being used by a non-profit organization), is it still "free software?" What would rms say?
My personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that the US pushes the concept of "free speech" a hell of a lot more then it actually practices it.
What most people call racism could more accurately be described as culturalism.
It's funny, though. You hear about Americans giving the French a hard time and trying to distance themselves from them in every way, but I don't hear anyone talking about tearing down that giant copper statue. Double standard, anyone?
Re:Know and love GCC
on
GCC 4.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I think someone might notice half the Internet disappearing overnight.
>And it probably won't come close to the taste of a plate of fresh, grain-field-fed dove breasts sauteed in garlic butter.
Well, if it has the same genetic structure as the real thing, and is built using the same biological techniques from the same base material as the real thing, there should be no way to distinguish between it and the real thing. After all, it's just chemistry.
You're missing the point. A binary interface for Linux doesn't go far enough; what we need is a common per-architecture binary driver interface.
You say that "A lot of hardware vendors don't care about linux..." Well, that may be true, but with a common binary driver interface, they don't need to!
I for one cannot see any reason why there should ever need to be one driver per CPU architecture, one that is used by Linux, Windows, x86 Mac, etc. The same basic code will be used to communicate with the device no matter what operating system is in use. And when you consider the virtualisation technology to be introduced into future models of x86 processors, it makes even more sense to make the driver OS agnostic.
Finally, I feel that the presence of the drivers in the Linux kernel source tree creates a significant amount of bloat and maintainance issues. At the very least, Linux should split into a driver source package, which simply abstracts the hardware into a set of APIs, and the Kernel proper, which is built on the driver API. Or something like that, I know I'm sick of recompiling every driver when I change my kernel version, especially when some of the hardware I use (e.g. digital TV cards) has no driver in the (stable) kernel. I am not content to wait, and I have no time to write it myself (not in any realisic time frame, anyway).
Also, 3D acceleration is not just used for gaming: You need the binary drivers if you wan't to use the harware MPEG decoders of NVIDIA cards, for example.
Basically what I'm saying is the status quo is not good enough: we can do better. The question is, why aren't we?
Slashdot Mirror
"Plus an almost fanatical devition to health care-four, our four chief weapons are ..."
By no means can two perfect copies of people be allowed to exist at the same time. It would rip apart the very fabric of space time as we know it. Therefore...
Just a thought, but maybe we don't know the fabric of spacetime as well as we like to think we do, hmm?
I'd rather ad a second gigabyte of memory before I tried upgrading my CPU.
Please hand in your geek card. You just failed.
(For those of you playing at home, the correct answer is "I would rather add a second gigabyte of memory and upgrade my CPU")
And the developer tells the boss to go fuck a pig and finds a better job. What's the freakin' problem?
Some people really don't care what others do with their code. Hence, they use a BSD or MIT style license.
And some people do. Hence, they use a GPL or LGPL style licence.
What exactly is it that we're arguing about anyway?
It is kind of like getting a job. Most people do not get jobs through classified ads, job sites or cold calling. Most get jobs through networking. Same with finding a new girlfriend.
Exacly what industry are you in? I never received a job through "networking", I got them by flooding the market with my resume until I get a job interview and then quietly explaining that they should hire me because I'm the best bloody programmer they're likely to find in a very long time.
If I had to rely on my "networking" skills to find a job I'd be living under a bridge by now.
Funny, that's how I write code.
Err ... Oh dear.
So, how do you think they're gonna convince all those people who already own SD DVD players to give them up for a HD unit, considering that most people a) don't have the equipment to display HD content any differently from SD, b) can make and play (and download!) copied SD discs without any real difficulty, and c) already consider SD DVD to be the best quality they're ever likely to see anyway?
My prediction? HD DVD is fucked.
and the faint glimmer of hope ... that something wonderful might actually happen to them
Something wonderful is happening to them: They are on T.V. and, based on this discussion alone, are now international celebrities. What more could a stupid person hope for?
How long will AACS keep HD DVD secure? Two weeks? Three? Place your bets, people! Closest to the mark wins, oh, I don't know, you think of something.
He's also a Tasmanian, which, by and large, means his opinion is fucking irrelevant. I mean, until just a few years ago it was still illegal for two adult men to have sex with each other in Tasmania, and the law was only overthrown through the invervention of an international human rights organisation.
This isn't a troll, just an honest reflection of Australian politics from the perspective of mainland Australians (Hell, some of my best friends are Tasmanians. Well, ex-Tasmanians, anyway).
Check out this link for more information about Tasmania's contribution to Australian politics.
"The Defendant shall please rise: For your dastardly crime of the Murder of one of our nation's Fine and Upstanding Recording Company officers, I hereby sentence you to the maximum penalty available to me under the Law: You shall be taken from this place to, er, another place, whereupon you shall be strapped to a gurney and the music of Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera shall be forcibly played to you until such time as your brain has been turned to Apple Sauce. And My God Have Mercy On Your Soul ('Cause The RIAA Sure As Hell Wont.)"
BANG.
BANG.
BANG.
Not to stray off-topic or belittle your point, but the Xbox 360 does not have tons of bugs.
Please! It's from Microsoft; therefore, it's full of bugs.
So what's your position on the whole "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre issue?
That would depend on if there actually was a fire or not. In any case, "free speech" does not mean "freedom from individual responsibility." Just because one is perfecly free to shout "FIRE!" does not mean one should.
Let me put it another way: I would never shout "FIRE!" in a theater unless there actually was a fire, even if there was no fear of punishment or recrimination. That's personal responsibility, and without it any attempt to create a free, liberal and democratic society is just a complete waste of time.
Absolute freedom from restrictions means that any for-profit company could do whatever they wanted with any open-source software and no one could say the first thing about it.
Yes, that's because corperations do not practice individual nor personal responsibility. If they did, there would be no need for such a clause. Once again, if it was my for-profit company, I would give back at least as much as I took (more in fact), regardless of the licence conditions, simply because I realise that the free software system only works if everybody excercises personal responsibility.
Shall we agree to respectfully disagree?
Of course! That's what free speech is all about :-)
All Indians don't work for US outsourcing tech companies. In fact, a very small minority of us do.
That may be so, but don't forget that the huge population difference between India and the US means that even if a "small minority" of you are involved in outsourcing, it is still enough to displace a significant portion of the US workforce. Not that this is a bad thing; it might even encourage them to get of their lazy, fat arses (yeah, you heard me!) and vote for someone who actually gives a shit about something other than taking over the world one oil-rich Middle-Eastern nation at a time.
However, I think that it's a huge jump from "you can say whatever you want, you just can't say it wherever you want" to "there's no free speech in America" as is so often claimed here.
Hmm, call me naive, but I would think that "free speech" is an all-or-nothing concept: It's either available everywhere, universally and without restriction, or it simply isn't "free speech."
I mean, consider the often used correlation between "free software" and "free speech." If there are restrictions on the software that only allow it to be "free" in certain circumstances (e.g. only if it's being used by a non-profit organization), is it still "free software?" What would rms say?
My personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that the US pushes the concept of "free speech" a hell of a lot more then it actually practices it.
No, that would be sensible.
What most people call racism could more accurately be described as culturalism.
It's funny, though. You hear about Americans giving the French a hard time and trying to distance themselves from them in every way, but I don't hear anyone talking about tearing down that giant copper statue. Double standard, anyone?
I think someone might notice half the Internet disappearing overnight.
Sweet! Send us a picture!
Cary Sherman, meet Rope. Rope, Cary Sherman. I'll leave you two to get acquainted.
>And it probably won't come close to the taste of a plate of fresh, grain-field-fed dove breasts sauteed in garlic butter.
Well, if it has the same genetic structure as the real thing, and is built using the same biological techniques from the same base material as the real thing, there should be no way to distinguish between it and the real thing. After all, it's just chemistry.
So, how long before we can start copying HD content?
>I for one cannot see any reason why there should ever need to be one driver per CPU architecture...
That should be "cannot see any reason why there should ever need to be more than one driver per CPU architecture"
Damn I feel silly :-P
You're missing the point. A binary interface for Linux doesn't go far enough; what we need is a common per-architecture binary driver interface.
You say that "A lot of hardware vendors don't care about linux..." Well, that may be true, but with a common binary driver interface, they don't need to!
I for one cannot see any reason why there should ever need to be one driver per CPU architecture, one that is used by Linux, Windows, x86 Mac, etc. The same basic code will be used to communicate with the device no matter what operating system is in use. And when you consider the virtualisation technology to be introduced into future models of x86 processors, it makes even more sense to make the driver OS agnostic.
Finally, I feel that the presence of the drivers in the Linux kernel source tree creates a significant amount of bloat and maintainance issues. At the very least, Linux should split into a driver source package, which simply abstracts the hardware into a set of APIs, and the Kernel proper, which is built on the driver API. Or something like that, I know I'm sick of recompiling every driver when I change my kernel version, especially when some of the hardware I use (e.g. digital TV cards) has no driver in the (stable) kernel. I am not content to wait, and I have no time to write it myself (not in any realisic time frame, anyway).
Also, 3D acceleration is not just used for gaming: You need the binary drivers if you wan't to use the harware MPEG decoders of NVIDIA cards, for example.
Basically what I'm saying is the status quo is not good enough: we can do better. The question is, why aren't we?