You realize that cd C:\PROGRA~1 looks quite a lot like cd "C:\Program Files"? Still has the use of backslashes as a path separator rather than a quote character; still has the whole drive letter thing... in fact, support for long filenames is the only difference you've demonstrated.
It still has attrib, mem, and most of the other old DOS commands. dir still has the same options, and starts out by listing the drive label (if any).
Don't tell me cmd.exe doesn't look and smell like DOS.
Oh yeah, the term "black" was so much more accurate to use when describing the group of Americans with African ancestry.
Yes, but then you have the people who say "African-American" even when referring to individuals who aren't American citizens at all. It's madness that lies that way -- madness, I tell you!
Back in school, I was (as webmaster) the sole caucasian member of the Friends Of Africa Club, which was otherwise made up entirely of foreign students (with one of whom I was much smitten) and their advisor. As such, I think there's a substantial set of people whose preferences I got a feel for, and they generally preferred "black".
Hypervisor-based virtualization systems need the OS to be modified to support them. Thus, this would only work for running older versions of Windows if they're willing to go out and build versions of 98/ME/2000/XP/etc which work against a hypervisor backend rather than running against raw hardware.
We all know Windows is virus-prone. Going and pointing it out in an unrelated discussion is a move appropriate to irritating people -- but not for any kind of serious advocacy. See, I was doing advocacy -- I mentioned one of Xen's niftiest features (live migrations) in the context of "well, I'd hope MS would be able to do that", thus setting up an expectation of a quality hypervisor-based virtualization systems having such a feature. When Microsoft's implementation comes out lacking that feature, it'll be that much more obvious that it isn't industrial-quality.
See, it's this thing called "subtlty". Ignore it to the extent your post does, and you come off as a troll. (That said, with the nick you're using, I have some reason to think that may be intentional -- if so, congrats, I took the bait).
Imagine a separate mail server, web server, terminal server, etc. all running on the same hardware, with support for migrating -- live! -- any particular OS instance over to different hardware (on the same SAN) if you're so inclined.
Well, I'd hope they could provide that latter feature -- Xen does.
I didn't say you weren't free to express it. I said it was offensive.
I thought you were against negative stereotypes being broadly applied to large swaths of people.
[OT] Your sig is offensive.
on
Are CRTs History?
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Slashdot: where racism against Indians is OK
Per subject. Granted, so are the comments inspiring it -- but claiming that such comments are representative of the community as a whole is an injustice to everyone else here.
Someone might be able to patent a specific implementation of a fighting game, or the software to render the fighters quickly. They couldn't patent 2 guys fighting in a game.
In theory, sure. In practice, it seems no more ridiculous than business model patents, or UI design patents. Coach it in the right language (maybe touching on difficult-to-avoid implementation elements), and I wouldn't be surprised if it were approved.
See, my issue is that I have neither time nor money. (I trade my time for stock options. Yes, I know it's risky). Testing old systems to determine which parts to keep and which to replace, and running out to find the replacable parts, is just more time than I can reasonably spend -- and the 300MHz sub-$100 systems sold by the local shop are just a *bit* too slow to be usable with a modern desktop environment. (Finding a reasonably current distribution with a collection of software already tested to run well on old machines would be great -- I could build something for the purpose with Gentoo, but that's more time than I can spend, again).
Refurb macs do indeed sound like a good idea. I've been thinking of getting something running OS X for a second home machine when I can afford it, and I'll have to look into that.
499 too much for you? You shouldn't be spending your money on a computer.
Why not? Are you arguing that the market segment for sub-$300 computers (new or otherwise) shouldn't exist? As nuevo-poor, I'm not sure I can agree with that; being able to have a cheap computer is one helluva lot better than having none at all, particularly given how capable today's cheap computers are.
Except that space isn't infinitely large, and doesn't actually have an infinite amount of matter in it. Sure, it's really damn big, but not infinitely so, and the chance of hitting conditions where life as we know it can exist are actually quite slim.
Let me qualify my counterargument, though, by emphasising "as we know it". Running into life that isn't anything like what we know of wouldn't suprise me in the least -- but then, maybe I've been reading a bit too much Robert Forward (postulating plausible mechanisms by which life utterly unlike what we know can exist at very low tempatures, at very high pressures, etc).
It would be interesting to know how many Americans could competantly argue the existance of a statistical likelihood of such; counter the common objections (wrt the narrowness of the range of environments in which life as we know it is sustainable and the improbability of such environments being generated by chance); and otherwise take part in an intelligent discussion on the topic. Depressing, I expect, but interesting. (Actually, I wonder at the extent to which the intelligent design movement, for all of its faults, may have helped to educate folks about the improbability of randomly generating an environment where life as we know it can exist -- there's something to be said for having folks who can put up a competant counterargument).
I don't anticipate that knowing how many Americans can prove life exists beyond Earth would be particularly interesting at all. (I presume you're excluding any life in human-generated artifacts, particularly those in orbit; and Americans posessing nonconclusive evidence [ie. those involved in studying the potential and/or evidence for present or former microbial life on Mars]? If not, perhaps I'm off by a bit).
Aren't we better looking for originally clean sources of energy? Instead industry always looks to try and make the dirty 'slightly less-dirty'.
Hybrid approaches are useful in the meantime. Even if we had unlimited free fusion energy today, it'd be a long time 'till our infrastructure were reworked to avoid needing petrolium-based fuels. And, ya know, there's enough R&D money to go around that we can actually try multiple avenues of approach as opposed to sinking everything into one or two approaches which may or may not work out.
Why shouldn't they? It's not like they need to be under the deulusion that these tools are more important or popular than their commercial or popular -- but within their niche they area, and IBM has demonstrated a willingness to exchange money for street cred within this niche community (which, I think, has contributed handsomely to their revenues).
I'm at a small startup in Austin, TX -- and while we're hopefully going to hit it big right around the corner, I've gotten a bit past the point of "a bit jaded" (and the funding to actually pay my negotiated cash salary, as opposed to option grants, still isn't in 3 years later). My job positions have historically been what you describe -- I'm part sysadmin, part app developer (Python/C/Java, that rough order of preference, a bit of PHP and Scheme and many others in my past as well), part kernel programmer, part revision control guy, part... well, you know the type (no EE background, though). If 'yall are likely to be looking for more folks with roughly my skillset (or even if not), please drop me an email; my address (in obfuscated form) is above. Lots of references available, of course.
That that government should not attempt to prevent elderly people from dying in the street?
Not if the individuals in question choose to opt out of the programs intended to help them in such cases, no.
Such programs are for all intents and purposes insurance, except that individuals are legally required to carry it and prevented from choosing alternate providers. This elimination of choice and personal responsibility is an affront to self-determination, and as such is basically immoral. It's my life, damnit, and padding the walls to stop me from screwing it up ain't being helpful -- particularly when it's done with my own resources. If I want the padding there, I'll arrange for it myself.
You disagree that we would rather not have elderly people dying in the street? Well, that's certainly an interesting position.
Well, if you had the ability to spend $20,000 on a new car, and you decided to save your money, it wouldn't quite be fair of me to then, completely out of context, refer to you as the guy who would rather not have a new car.
If so many people agree with you, why aren't these bills passing?
I didn't say I have anything remotely close to a majority -- but just because I'm in a minority doesn't mean that "You don't agree with how our society does things? Get out" is an appropriate response. My point was that while I may be supporting a minority view, I'm not quite at the point of being a solitary kook.
There are companies working on cutting down that paperwork. I'm employed by one (though our goals go substantially beyond that). Give it five years, and the processes you refer to will be streamlined quite considerably.
That said -- the paperwork and processes you refer to are considerably more complex than a mere boolean "has $PERSON opted out?", which could be implemented quite straightforwardly.
Furthermore, we live in a society that would rather not have elderly people dying on the street.
That's your preference, sure. Don't go projecting it onto everyone else. The parent disagrees. I disagree. Such American luminaries as Robert Heinlein disagree. Eventually, that disagreement might be enough to cause change.
WRT the welfare system -- private insurance companes don't have much trouble determining who is a paying client and who isn't. Why should the welfare system be any different?
Slashdot Mirror
You realize that cd C:\PROGRA~1 looks quite a lot like cd "C:\Program Files"? Still has the use of backslashes as a path separator rather than a quote character; still has the whole drive letter thing... in fact, support for long filenames is the only difference you've demonstrated.
It still has attrib, mem, and most of the other old DOS commands. dir still has the same options, and starts out by listing the drive label (if any).
Don't tell me cmd.exe doesn't look and smell like DOS.
You do realize there are white box PPCs, right?
Oh yeah, the term "black" was so much more accurate to use when describing the group of Americans with African ancestry.
Yes, but then you have the people who say "African-American" even when referring to individuals who aren't American citizens at all. It's madness that lies that way -- madness, I tell you!
Back in school, I was (as webmaster) the sole caucasian member of the Friends Of Africa Club, which was otherwise made up entirely of foreign students (with one of whom I was much smitten) and their advisor. As such, I think there's a substantial set of people whose preferences I got a feel for, and they generally preferred "black".
tr -cd A-Z
See, I tried that (well, with the square brackets in), but it kept returning an empty set.
Hypervisor-based virtualization systems need the OS to be modified to support them. Thus, this would only work for running older versions of Windows if they're willing to go out and build versions of 98/ME/2000/XP/etc which work against a hypervisor backend rather than running against raw hardware.
I don't find this likely.
Oh, please.
We all know Windows is virus-prone. Going and pointing it out in an unrelated discussion is a move appropriate to irritating people -- but not for any kind of serious advocacy. See, I was doing advocacy -- I mentioned one of Xen's niftiest features (live migrations) in the context of "well, I'd hope MS would be able to do that", thus setting up an expectation of a quality hypervisor-based virtualization systems having such a feature. When Microsoft's implementation comes out lacking that feature, it'll be that much more obvious that it isn't industrial-quality.
See, it's this thing called "subtlty". Ignore it to the extent your post does, and you come off as a troll. (That said, with the nick you're using, I have some reason to think that may be intentional -- if so, congrats, I took the bait).
Multiple instances of the same OS, of course.
Imagine a separate mail server, web server, terminal server, etc. all running on the same hardware, with support for migrating -- live! -- any particular OS instance over to different hardware (on the same SAN) if you're so inclined.
Well, I'd hope they could provide that latter feature -- Xen does.
What does preventing the government from making a law abridging freedom of speech have to do with reading at -1?
I didn't say you weren't free to express it. I said it was offensive.
I thought you were against negative stereotypes being broadly applied to large swaths of people.
Someone might be able to patent a specific implementation of a fighting game, or the software to render the fighters quickly. They couldn't patent 2 guys fighting in a game.
In theory, sure. In practice, it seems no more ridiculous than business model patents, or UI design patents. Coach it in the right language (maybe touching on difficult-to-avoid implementation elements), and I wouldn't be surprised if it were approved.
See, my issue is that I have neither time nor money. (I trade my time for stock options. Yes, I know it's risky). Testing old systems to determine which parts to keep and which to replace, and running out to find the replacable parts, is just more time than I can reasonably spend -- and the 300MHz sub-$100 systems sold by the local shop are just a *bit* too slow to be usable with a modern desktop environment. (Finding a reasonably current distribution with a collection of software already tested to run well on old machines would be great -- I could build something for the purpose with Gentoo, but that's more time than I can spend, again).
Refurb macs do indeed sound like a good idea. I've been thinking of getting something running OS X for a second home machine when I can afford it, and I'll have to look into that.
499 too much for you? You shouldn't be spending your money on a computer.
Why not? Are you arguing that the market segment for sub-$300 computers (new or otherwise) shouldn't exist? As nuevo-poor, I'm not sure I can agree with that; being able to have a cheap computer is one helluva lot better than having none at all, particularly given how capable today's cheap computers are.
Except that space isn't infinitely large, and doesn't actually have an infinite amount of matter in it. Sure, it's really damn big, but not infinitely so, and the chance of hitting conditions where life as we know it can exist are actually quite slim.
Let me qualify my counterargument, though, by emphasising "as we know it". Running into life that isn't anything like what we know of wouldn't suprise me in the least -- but then, maybe I've been reading a bit too much Robert Forward (postulating plausible mechanisms by which life utterly unlike what we know can exist at very low tempatures, at very high pressures, etc).
It would be interesting to know how many Americans could competantly argue the existance of a statistical likelihood of such; counter the common objections (wrt the narrowness of the range of environments in which life as we know it is sustainable and the improbability of such environments being generated by chance); and otherwise take part in an intelligent discussion on the topic. Depressing, I expect, but interesting. (Actually, I wonder at the extent to which the intelligent design movement, for all of its faults, may have helped to educate folks about the improbability of randomly generating an environment where life as we know it can exist -- there's something to be said for having folks who can put up a competant counterargument).
I don't anticipate that knowing how many Americans can prove life exists beyond Earth would be particularly interesting at all. (I presume you're excluding any life in human-generated artifacts, particularly those in orbit; and Americans posessing nonconclusive evidence [ie. those involved in studying the potential and/or evidence for present or former microbial life on Mars]? If not, perhaps I'm off by a bit).
Aren't we better looking for originally clean sources of energy? Instead industry always looks to try and make the dirty 'slightly less-dirty'.
Hybrid approaches are useful in the meantime. Even if we had unlimited free fusion energy today, it'd be a long time 'till our infrastructure were reworked to avoid needing petrolium-based fuels. And, ya know, there's enough R&D money to go around that we can actually try multiple avenues of approach as opposed to sinking everything into one or two approaches which may or may not work out.
Yeah, I bet IBM really care about Gimp/Blender
Why shouldn't they? It's not like they need to be under the deulusion that these tools are more important or popular than their commercial or popular -- but within their niche they area, and IBM has demonstrated a willingness to exchange money for street cred within this niche community (which, I think, has contributed handsomely to their revenues).
Just curious, where do you work?
I'm at a small startup in Austin, TX -- and while we're hopefully going to hit it big right around the corner, I've gotten a bit past the point of "a bit jaded" (and the funding to actually pay my negotiated cash salary, as opposed to option grants, still isn't in 3 years later). My job positions have historically been what you describe -- I'm part sysadmin, part app developer (Python/C/Java, that rough order of preference, a bit of PHP and Scheme and many others in my past as well), part kernel programmer, part revision control guy, part... well, you know the type (no EE background, though). If 'yall are likely to be looking for more folks with roughly my skillset (or even if not), please drop me an email; my address (in obfuscated form) is above. Lots of references available, of course.
That that government should not attempt to prevent elderly people from dying in the street?
Not if the individuals in question choose to opt out of the programs intended to help them in such cases, no.
Such programs are for all intents and purposes insurance, except that individuals are legally required to carry it and prevented from choosing alternate providers. This elimination of choice and personal responsibility is an affront to self-determination, and as such is basically immoral. It's my life, damnit, and padding the walls to stop me from screwing it up ain't being helpful -- particularly when it's done with my own resources. If I want the padding there, I'll arrange for it myself.
You disagree that we would rather not have elderly people dying in the street? Well, that's certainly an interesting position.
Well, if you had the ability to spend $20,000 on a new car, and you decided to save your money, it wouldn't quite be fair of me to then, completely out of context, refer to you as the guy who would rather not have a new car.
If so many people agree with you, why aren't these bills passing?
I didn't say I have anything remotely close to a majority -- but just because I'm in a minority doesn't mean that "You don't agree with how our society does things? Get out" is an appropriate response. My point was that while I may be supporting a minority view, I'm not quite at the point of being a solitary kook.
Sorry -- we just had an all-hands meeting, and the whole sworn-to-secrecy thing just got reinforced. Ask again in 8 months.
There are companies working on cutting down that paperwork. I'm employed by one (though our goals go substantially beyond that). Give it five years, and the processes you refer to will be streamlined quite considerably.
That said -- the paperwork and processes you refer to are considerably more complex than a mere boolean "has $PERSON opted out?", which could be implemented quite straightforwardly.
Furthermore, we live in a society that would rather not have elderly people dying on the street.
That's your preference, sure. Don't go projecting it onto everyone else. The parent disagrees. I disagree. Such American luminaries as Robert Heinlein disagree. Eventually, that disagreement might be enough to cause change.
WRT the welfare system -- private insurance companes don't have much trouble determining who is a paying client and who isn't. Why should the welfare system be any different?
Hm, last time I checked, a majority of the American public supported publicly financed space exploration.
If they really want it that much, why wouldn't they support it through private donations as well?
The cynical side of me says it's something most people will gladly say they support when it's mostly someone else's money.