Yep, heard of them. Not censorship. People can still say everything and anything they want. They just have to constrain their rock and bottle throwing to a safe distance.
And all the yelling and screaming is about oppression and censorship. As in, the government oppressing you. This is not happening. And when people spout bullshit, I'll call them on it.
Not if it's a decency issue, which is what this is. Airwaves are and always have been considered "public," in the same sense that a public place is "public." Thus, any behavior deemed by the FCC to be offensive to the public is subject to fine. It's always been this way. In fact, it's much more relaxed now than it was 50 years ago. People are just making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Plenty of people get labeled "un-Patriotic" for good or ill (not sure which).
Nobody I've seen.
I saw a cardboard sign on the back of a truck that said "Real Americans don't protest".
How do you know it was a member of the Administration? In fact, I'm kind of surprised that you could get close to a Presdiential or Vice-Presidential motorcade. What's that? It wasn't a member of the government? Just some schmoe? Expressing his opinion? How dare he oppress you like that...
You know what I find amusing about this thing? My reply about people who screamed about free speech while exercising it was...modded down as flamebait! Kinda gives you a sense of pride...
It always amazes me when someone gets up on a soapbox and screams some silly thing, then claims that there's no such thing as free speech. Like Michael Moore.
Just another step down the road away from the monolithic, single-task computer, for increased parallelism and manageability.
I'm a neophyte at kernel design, so be patient.:-)
How will this effect really high-end performance applications? Specifically, I'm thinking of music applications. The holy grail of desktop music production is a one-box solution. We want a single computing device with enough horsepower to do:
Realtime synthesis with a wide variety of highly complicated models from various sources (file data, algorithmically generated data, live input from external devices) on a virtually unlimited number of voices
Realtime processing of external audio or the synthesized audio with a long string of processing modules on a large number of audio streams
Live multitrack recording of all the above on a large or very large number of tracks
Keep this stuff in sync down to the sample-level
Possibly stream all of this over some kind of high-performance network
Finally, do it all with very high sampling rates (at *least* 96 kHz) and bit-depths (32 bits is a reasonable goal)
Hardly any one of these things can even be done with one computer running a general purpose OS right now (multitrack recording on a relatively large number of tracks is possible with special hardware). How much would a nanokernel approach set us back on the path to this kind of goal?
What I can't believe is that I haven't seen anybody do anything with the "Could it be......SA-TAN?" bit yet. Seems like natural material for a good gag.
This is the second time I've seen a "1999 called" reply to a lame AYB joke. I'm formulating a theory that we're going to start seeing a group of AYB responses that will build up into a wave of redundant memes in and of itself. I find this frightening. Thoughts?
I thought this was just about achieving "spaceflight". In other words, make it to an altitude that could be considered space and fly there for some period of time. Somebody else here said that X15 pilots that got to the edge of space earned "Astronaut Wings". I guess it's pretty much a question of how people are interpreting what's done and said here.
I was 8 years old when Challenger flew her last mission. The whole elementary school was watching the thing on a big screen TV. I don't know if they still do that stuff or not. I'd wager that they don't. I think they're spending most of their time (trying to) keep kids from raping and killing each other now.
What's the significance of the first black guy in space? Seriously?
That's what Martin Luther King would have said. In fact, that's what he *did* say. But the current "civil rights" movement has gone in the opposite direction. The left in this country has lost their moorings. They've gone away from promoting a colorblind society and entered the realm of multiculturalism: celebrating our differences rather than our common humanity. That's why men like Rush Limbaugh can say that we're all equal, no matter what color wrapper we come in, and STILL be skewered as a racist.
I actually wasn't responding to your post. And I was probably a bit harsh on the guy I was responding to. It just gets me a bit upset when people start talking about how much destruction we're inflicting on the environment (which I really don't believe in that much anyway) while ignoring the far greater impact that other economic systems have had.
I hate to point it out to you, but Socialist nations like Poland, the Soviet Union, and China poluted a whole FUCKING HELL of a lot more than the U.S. ever has or ever will. Just a data point for ya.
raise your hand if you don't hate either Dubya or Kerry
*Raises hand*. I don't hate either one. I don't agree with some of Bush's policies, and I don't agree with any of Kerry's, but hate is far too strong a word. In fact, I immediately write off anyone who says they hate a politician. It means the rational decision-making process has given over to pure emotion. I might sometimes go so far as to say that I admire or dislike the personal character of a politician though.
I do agree with you on the hate speech issue though. Once we go down the road of defining which beliefs and positions are permitted to be heard, we're in trouble. Groups like the KKK are marginalized here in the U.S. precisely *because* everyone can hear what they believe.
Thomas Paine: "Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing."
He called for the US to withdraw from the UN because he didn't like a policy pushed by... the US !
I don't necessarily agree with his motives for opposition to the UN but you probably misunderstood his post. He called for the US to withdraw from the UN because he believed that the UN was not necessary to push American dominance into foreign markets.
But your comment itself was incredibly confused:
1. "Neo-cons" hold the exact opposite view of isolationists. It's one of the things that threatens to split American conservatives right down the middle. I'm not sure why you think the two are equivalent. Perhaps it was just a typo.
2. Believing that international government is a bad idea is not necessarily isolationist. I believe international government is dangerous, yet I still believe in free trade and independent friendly relationships with other nations.
3. Opposition to the UN certainly doesn't qualify as "dumb-ass." There are some excellent reasons for opposing a shift toward broadened governmental jurisdiction.
4. Plenty of intelligent people live in low-population regions. Many of them also have accents that you may find peculiar. But an accent has nothing to do with intelligence or the validity of one's beliefs. At any rate, calling someone a "hick" is not even meaningful in this case since neither you nor I know anything about the original poster. He could be a Buddhist monk in New York City for all we know.
Perhaps you were simply reacting in anger, which happens from time to time. But there are people opposed to international government that don't fit your moldy old stereotypes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, heard of them. Not censorship. People can still say everything and anything they want. They just have to constrain their rock and bottle throwing to a safe distance.
And all the yelling and screaming is about oppression and censorship. As in, the government oppressing you. This is not happening. And when people spout bullshit, I'll call them on it.
Not if it's a decency issue, which is what this is. Airwaves are and always have been considered "public," in the same sense that a public place is "public." Thus, any behavior deemed by the FCC to be offensive to the public is subject to fine. It's always been this way. In fact, it's much more relaxed now than it was 50 years ago. People are just making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Nobody I've seen.
I saw a cardboard sign on the back of a truck that said "Real Americans don't protest".
How do you know it was a member of the Administration? In fact, I'm kind of surprised that you could get close to a Presdiential or Vice-Presidential motorcade. What's that? It wasn't a member of the government? Just some schmoe? Expressing his opinion? How dare he oppress you like that...
You know what I find amusing about this thing? My reply about people who screamed about free speech while exercising it was...modded down as flamebait! Kinda gives you a sense of pride...
Puh-leeze. Get over your delusions of "standing up to the evil oppressors." This isn't Nazi Germany and you're not Niemoller.
No, it's just you. Nobody has been labeled as un-American. Nobody. I'm still trying to figure out where the hell people get this idea.
It always amazes me when someone gets up on a soapbox and screams some silly thing, then claims that there's no such thing as free speech. Like Michael Moore.
I'm a neophyte at kernel design, so be patient. :-)
How will this effect really high-end performance applications? Specifically, I'm thinking of music applications. The holy grail of desktop music production is a one-box solution. We want a single computing device with enough horsepower to do:
Hardly any one of these things can even be done with one computer running a general purpose OS right now (multitrack recording on a relatively large number of tracks is possible with special hardware). How much would a nanokernel approach set us back on the path to this kind of goal?
No, no, no. All the actors have been replaced by Ewoks. With walkie-talkies.
May I suggest some humor? Perhaps the Krusty Komedy Klassic?
What I can't believe is that I haven't seen anybody do anything with the "Could it be......SA-TAN?" bit yet. Seems like natural material for a good gag.
You win! That's *exactly* what I was looking for. Now, we just have to turn that thought into glorious reality...
This is the second time I've seen a "1999 called" reply to a lame AYB joke. I'm formulating a theory that we're going to start seeing a group of AYB responses that will build up into a wave of redundant memes in and of itself. I find this frightening. Thoughts?
When he sees it.
Are there a lot of violent barfights in your area?
I thought this was just about achieving "spaceflight". In other words, make it to an altitude that could be considered space and fly there for some period of time. Somebody else here said that X15 pilots that got to the edge of space earned "Astronaut Wings". I guess it's pretty much a question of how people are interpreting what's done and said here.
I was 8 years old when Challenger flew her last mission. The whole elementary school was watching the thing on a big screen TV. I don't know if they still do that stuff or not. I'd wager that they don't. I think they're spending most of their time (trying to) keep kids from raping and killing each other now.
There are some good blogs though. To simply dismiss all blogs is a tad much. I like Belmont Club, for example.
I think that's the plan, yes. BTW, fellow associate member of the VRWC here. :-)
That's what Martin Luther King would have said. In fact, that's what he *did* say. But the current "civil rights" movement has gone in the opposite direction. The left in this country has lost their moorings. They've gone away from promoting a colorblind society and entered the realm of multiculturalism: celebrating our differences rather than our common humanity. That's why men like Rush Limbaugh can say that we're all equal, no matter what color wrapper we come in, and STILL be skewered as a racist.
I actually wasn't responding to your post. And I was probably a bit harsh on the guy I was responding to. It just gets me a bit upset when people start talking about how much destruction we're inflicting on the environment (which I really don't believe in that much anyway) while ignoring the far greater impact that other economic systems have had.
I hate to point it out to you, but Socialist nations like Poland, the Soviet Union, and China poluted a whole FUCKING HELL of a lot more than the U.S. ever has or ever will. Just a data point for ya.
*Raises hand*. I don't hate either one. I don't agree with some of Bush's policies, and I don't agree with any of Kerry's, but hate is far too strong a word. In fact, I immediately write off anyone who says they hate a politician. It means the rational decision-making process has given over to pure emotion. I might sometimes go so far as to say that I admire or dislike the personal character of a politician though.
I do agree with you on the hate speech issue though. Once we go down the road of defining which beliefs and positions are permitted to be heard, we're in trouble. Groups like the KKK are marginalized here in the U.S. precisely *because* everyone can hear what they believe.
Thomas Paine: "Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing."
I don't necessarily agree with his motives for opposition to the UN but you probably misunderstood his post. He called for the US to withdraw from the UN because he believed that the UN was not necessary to push American dominance into foreign markets.
But your comment itself was incredibly confused:
1. "Neo-cons" hold the exact opposite view of isolationists. It's one of the things that threatens to split American conservatives right down the middle. I'm not sure why you think the two are equivalent. Perhaps it was just a typo.
2. Believing that international government is a bad idea is not necessarily isolationist. I believe international government is dangerous, yet I still believe in free trade and independent friendly relationships with other nations.
3. Opposition to the UN certainly doesn't qualify as "dumb-ass." There are some excellent reasons for opposing a shift toward broadened governmental jurisdiction.
4. Plenty of intelligent people live in low-population regions. Many of them also have accents that you may find peculiar. But an accent has nothing to do with intelligence or the validity of one's beliefs. At any rate, calling someone a "hick" is not even meaningful in this case since neither you nor I know anything about the original poster. He could be a Buddhist monk in New York City for all we know.
Perhaps you were simply reacting in anger, which happens from time to time. But there are people opposed to international government that don't fit your moldy old stereotypes.