I've got to back up your praise of Frontline. It's excellent. At times it seems so incisive that I don't understand why other news agencies haven't picked up one of their stories and spun it to a wider audience. Check out "The Man Who Knew"
"They conclude the existence of objects from nothing more than argument, without the requirement of physical proof "
Ahh, but you see, to the philosopher, empirical "proof" is the concern of epistemology, and an epistemological theory can be side swiped by other branches of philosophy.
Of course, the point is to ridicule the windy, meaningless verbiage that passes for insight in academic literary circles. In the early '90s (if not always) every tenure track literati raced for command of the Flying Wedge of avant-garde literary criticism. The results, however sincerely an author may have set forth, always looked like someone with nothing to say trying to sound "smart".
That's what inspired Alan Sokal to submit a spoof of that garbage to Social Text as genuine. Scroll to the top of Sokal's page and you'll find a link to elsewhere.org's Postmodern Generator!
In other words...
It's a nice proof-of-concept on the programming/humour side, but of little value for Literature essays."
as long as someone has an SBC landline (ie. 95% of the population in SBC territory), then they already ARE paying for line maintenace.
IIRC, back when I was still comparing DSL providers I heard that one can't get DSL in SBC territory from anyone without having an SBC landline account. Even though I'd just as soon ditch my home number entirely I can't without SBC blocking the line. There's no technical reason for this to be so. Speakeasy does after all pay SBC's rent after I've paid Speakeasy.
It would be fun to sing the praises of technology, but when it comes to voting I think you're on to something. The technology we need for large scale, secure elections has been around for a long time -- it's called paper and pen. I fail to see why it need be more complicated than circling a name and dropping it in a box.
I dual boot Debian unstable and OS X Jaguar on my TiBook 800. The only thing impressive about OS X's graphic capabilities is that I can get playable FPS on Medal of Honor, but then that isn't much of a testament to Aqua. If you really find that XFree86 is slower OS X then there is something grossly misconfigured on your system.
"The G4's vector processing engine is still far superior to anything Intel has, which is why it's been used for so many Blast implementations."
It's used for so many Blast implementations because it's well suited for Blast. That doesn't make Altivec "far superior to anything Intel has". One might as well lambast Motorola for their crappy implementation of SSE2. Besides, Blast isn't the only computationally intensive programming task out there. It wouldn't kill you to give the G4 some props without re-mouthing Apple's marketing line. Why not give us some goodies about G4 vs P4 performance at CFD, for example? If it's as flat out superior as you claim it to be the proof shouldn't be too hard to find.
The high end G5 beats the best PC you can build right now with dual Xeon CPU's
Well, according to the benchmarks done at NASA the G5's performance is equivalent to the performance one could get from the best P4 available in November 2002. So I would say your claim is up for some dispute. Is it really so hard to just plain like the computer you want without needing to believe it's the "best"?
I've got to agree with you. The only laptop I own is a TiBook, and frankly I would prefer that it had no internal optical drive, or at least the ablility to replace said drive with an extra battery. There's no reason to hobble battery life on a portable computer when the need for an optical drive of any sort can be filled via firewire, USB, or ethernet/WiFi (a la NFS). As much as I like Ars Technica, their claim that DVD burning is a requirement (on a portable no less!) is ridiculous.
If you honestly feel this way why don't you just follow RedHat's lead? I have heard nothing from them or any other commercial distribution indicating concern over SCO's sabre rattling. Keep working and chill until Alan Cox starts sending out resumes.
VivianC was using that analogy to compair to email... Saying that her inbox is not open to the public, by compairing it to her house (which has a publicly available address). I was pointing out the difference, if his house was like her inbox, I would be able to come over and put something in it
You are drawing a different conclusion from the analogy than VivianC and I have -- if not downright ignoring it. VivianC made the analogy in the first place to argue that public knowledge doesn't equal an invitation or a waiver of certain rights. VivianC want's her inbox treated like her home and thinks you need to explain why others have the right (from your position) to do to her inbox what they can't do to her home. "Explaining" that her e-mail address is different because spammers can send mail to it does nothing to advance your argument. All three of us already know that anyway.
The issues brought up here don't concern the technical mechanics of defending one's inbox. They are about where we place the line separating public and private space. Answer that and we can move on to the First Amendment implications of anti-spam legislation.
differences with your compairisons and email:
I don't allow the public into my bedroom or my mother...
Good for you.:) Should any would-be rapist or scat freak fail at their attempt because they met the business end of your shotgun or your registered-with-the-FBI-karate-chop-hands I will applaud your stalwart self-defense. I will not, however, argue for or against their right do what they wanted to do just because you stopped them. That is a different issue.
I hope that clears things up...
Of course not. The problem isn't that I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's that you aren't talking about what VivianC was talking about.
As for the First Amendment, I agree that it embodies a principal that should be defended even if that means putting up with the bullshit it allows. Does it apply here though? I don't know myself, but I can think of questions we should ask to find the truth. If you can look at my front door because it faces the street does that mean you're allowed to look inside? If not, then why not? If it's alright for me to spam VivianC's inbox, is it OK for me to mail pornography to her home? If not, then why not? Is advertisement "speech"? Is e-mail a broadcast medium?
One of the first posters on this item mentioned that his NEC burner wasn't too bad on the ears. Does anyone offhand know of a good review that evaluates the relative noise output of DVD burners?
I can't wait for those whining left wingers to release their grip on the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. They're the only thing stopping me from getting cheap broadband.
For the record, it has been claimed (with merit, I think) that urban living is more economically and even environmentally efficient than the alternatives. Think rainforest versus mono-culture.
I don't mean to be disrepectful, but if you're only saying that "life.c" was written a long time ago you should read some reviews of this book. Even a cursory glance at the reader commentary on Amazon will show that Wolfram is not trying to say that cellular automata are neeto. He spent ten years on this thing with the intention of showing that (roughly) Nature is a cellular automaton. I think his desire is to point the way to a kind of Grand Unified Theory -- except instead of finding a simple formula beneath it all the way e=mc^2 summed up Relativity he would have us search for an algorithm that spawns the universe. My take on this could be all wet (and so could he), but he is too intellectually aware, ambitious, and arrogant to merely add an appendix to an old chapter in computer science.
Slashdot Mirror
I just tried it on a Ti4200 with `"RenderAccel" "True"' and got the same result. Xrender wins round 1, but blows at everything else.
What does this mean? Are you saying that theoritically perfect DAC reproduction at the Nyquist limit requires infinite bit depth?
I've got to back up your praise of Frontline. It's excellent. At times it seems so incisive that I don't understand why other news agencies haven't picked up one of their stories and spun it to a wider audience. Check out "The Man Who Knew"
What poet was that?
Ahh, but you see, to the philosopher, empirical "proof" is the concern of epistemology, and an epistemological theory can be side swiped by other branches of philosophy.
That's what inspired Alan Sokal to submit a spoof of that garbage to Social Text as genuine. Scroll to the top of Sokal's page and you'll find a link to elsewhere.org's Postmodern Generator!
In other words...
It's a nice proof-of-concept on the programming/humour side, but of little value for Literature essays."
I feel more humored than informed...
Because SBC didn't wire up that telephony infrastructure all by themselves. No one is demanding public access to a private road here.
IIRC, back when I was still comparing DSL providers I heard that one can't get DSL in SBC territory from anyone without having an SBC landline account. Even though I'd just as soon ditch my home number entirely I can't without SBC blocking the line. There's no technical reason for this to be so. Speakeasy does after all pay SBC's rent after I've paid Speakeasy.
It would be fun to sing the praises of technology, but when it comes to voting I think you're on to something. The technology we need for large scale, secure elections has been around for a long time -- it's called paper and pen. I fail to see why it need be more complicated than circling a name and dropping it in a box.
If OS X is worth what so many here seem to think it's worth I'd buy two OS-less Apple laptops...
I dual boot Debian unstable and OS X Jaguar on my TiBook 800. The only thing impressive about OS X's graphic capabilities is that I can get playable FPS on Medal of Honor, but then that isn't much of a testament to Aqua. If you really find that XFree86 is slower OS X then there is something grossly misconfigured on your system.
It's used for so many Blast implementations because it's well suited for Blast. That doesn't make Altivec "far superior to anything Intel has". One might as well lambast Motorola for their crappy implementation of SSE2. Besides, Blast isn't the only computationally intensive programming task out there. It wouldn't kill you to give the G4 some props without re-mouthing Apple's marketing line. Why not give us some goodies about G4 vs P4 performance at CFD, for example? If it's as flat out superior as you claim it to be the proof shouldn't be too hard to find.
The high end G5 beats the best PC you can build right now with dual Xeon CPU's
Well, according to the benchmarks done at NASA the G5's performance is equivalent to the performance one could get from the best P4 available in November 2002. So I would say your claim is up for some dispute. Is it really so hard to just plain like the computer you want without needing to believe it's the "best"?
I've got to agree with you. The only laptop I own is a TiBook, and frankly I would prefer that it had no internal optical drive, or at least the ablility to replace said drive with an extra battery. There's no reason to hobble battery life on a portable computer when the need for an optical drive of any sort can be filled via firewire, USB, or ethernet/WiFi (a la NFS). As much as I like Ars Technica, their claim that DVD burning is a requirement (on a portable no less!) is ridiculous.
I hope it's more than the number of people who would use a 17" laptop...
If you honestly feel this way why don't you just follow RedHat's lead? I have heard nothing from them or any other commercial distribution indicating concern over SCO's sabre rattling. Keep working and chill until Alan Cox starts sending out resumes.
You are drawing a different conclusion from the analogy than VivianC and I have -- if not downright ignoring it. VivianC made the analogy in the first place to argue that public knowledge doesn't equal an invitation or a waiver of certain rights. VivianC want's her inbox treated like her home and thinks you need to explain why others have the right (from your position) to do to her inbox what they can't do to her home. "Explaining" that her e-mail address is different because spammers can send mail to it does nothing to advance your argument. All three of us already know that anyway.
The issues brought up here don't concern the technical mechanics of defending one's inbox. They are about where we place the line separating public and private space. Answer that and we can move on to the First Amendment implications of anti-spam legislation.
differences with your compairisons and email: I don't allow the public into my bedroom or my mother...
Good for you.:) Should any would-be rapist or scat freak fail at their attempt because they met the business end of your shotgun or your registered-with-the-FBI-karate-chop-hands I will applaud your stalwart self-defense. I will not, however, argue for or against their right do what they wanted to do just because you stopped them. That is a different issue.
I hope that clears things up...
Of course not. The problem isn't that I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's that you aren't talking about what VivianC was talking about.
As for the First Amendment, I agree that it embodies a principal that should be defended even if that means putting up with the bullshit it allows. Does it apply here though? I don't know myself, but I can think of questions we should ask to find the truth. If you can look at my front door because it faces the street does that mean you're allowed to look inside? If not, then why not? If it's alright for me to spam VivianC's inbox, is it OK for me to mail pornography to her home? If not, then why not? Is advertisement "speech"? Is e-mail a broadcast medium?
One of the first posters on this item mentioned that his NEC burner wasn't too bad on the ears. Does anyone offhand know of a good review that evaluates the relative noise output of DVD burners?
I can't wait for those whining left wingers to release their grip on the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. They're the only thing stopping me from getting cheap broadband.
Or landporting it.
For the record, it has been claimed (with merit, I think) that urban living is more economically and even environmentally efficient than the alternatives. Think rainforest versus mono-culture.
Mr. and Mrs. Wolfram did that.
I don't mean to be disrepectful, but if you're only saying that "life.c" was written a long time ago you should read some reviews of this book. Even a cursory glance at the reader commentary on Amazon will show that Wolfram is not trying to say that cellular automata are neeto. He spent ten years on this thing with the intention of showing that (roughly) Nature is a cellular automaton. I think his desire is to point the way to a kind of Grand Unified Theory -- except instead of finding a simple formula beneath it all the way e=mc^2 summed up Relativity he would have us search for an algorithm that spawns the universe. My take on this could be all wet (and so could he), but he is too intellectually aware, ambitious, and arrogant to merely add an appendix to an old chapter in computer science.
That's a cool word.
That's the fucking funniest comment I've read here in months.