While the likelihood of Mono being a trap has come down over time, I'm still not very keen on installing or using it. So unless something important enough to me comes along that requires it, I will avoid anything which requires it.
procyon -- current desktop renard -- former desktop, currently doing F@H, misc. server work (I took the suggestion from someone here at/.), will not go into soft-off/S5---it actually reboots instead, which is weird mephitis -- old laptop (inoperable due to loose power jack) fennec -- wireless router lepus-crassus -- big, old clunker of a laptop my mother uses for Web and e-mail. That, and I think I had a certain stale meme on my mind at the time.
I have one name that pre-dates this motif: sanctuary, an old Pentium 2. I think I should rename it sloth. I have a machine that's nearly as good as procyon, integrated graphics notwithstanding, and I built it from mostly spare parts, so I'm just trying to figure out something appropriate for it. My new netbook (an Acer Aspire One) will have to wait until I get Slackware onto it before it gets a name better than localhost.
And I'd love the chance to take over my sister's old computer; it can be jumbo for its lack of memory (Wikipedia's list of famous elephants makes me sad).
And guess what: The scientist learned from his painful mistake, and moved on with the next batch, which was better as a result of the mistake. As you say, some doctors face the same issues - but they do face them, and society is better for it.
I think that if the end pursuit---not the intermediate discoveries, as they would most certainly be practical---weren't so vain, this would be more comfortable to me, and maybe a few others.
And don't try to argue that this wish in the back of many furries' minds isn't vain. There's no significant purpose other than personal taste to create a sentient creature whose external appearence is non-human. (And by "don't try to argue", by all means, please do if you wish; it will at least be entertaining if it isn't insightful.):P
Also, my point about biological vs. cybernetic (I don't want to use that word, but I am lacking a better term) is that beyond a certain complexity, it is easier for us to emulate nature by building systems in terms we ourselves created (computers, logic, etc.) than to try to manipulate something we did not design. Accordingly, I think that emulation is the path of least resistence and the better one to take, for a multitude of reasons which I do not presently have the time to enumerate.
Strong AI and cyborg bodies are a far better alternative. I would think it easier to manipulate systems that we ourselves have created in the image of the biological, rather than trying to manipulate biology itself. I figure that we'll have to do less reverse-engineering, which is a a pain in the ass---we have a hard enough time trying to reverse-engineer human systems already, so imagine how much harder it would be to get the desired results.
And how can you not care about the price of failure with genetic manipulation? Yesterday, when this article was making the rounds at other sites, I recalled a vignette about the topic written by Will Sandborn in 1996---my imagination about the piece was better than the piece itself (I'll throw you a link when I get home, if you would like, but the title was something like "Worse than Failure"), but I think it accurately conveyed the cost of finding out that months or years into a young experimental anthropomorph's life, something has gone terminally wrong. And then imagine having to deal with it again and again and again, because with the kind of invasive changes that would have to be made with the genome, mistakes will occur, and some of them will not manifest for some time. I suppose if one is an oncologist or other health worker who regularly deals with cancer patients, then one has been desensitized to this kind of death, but short of that, how can you not feel sorry for the near-successes?
It's not about fixing anything. It's about being childish and spiteful.
And goddamn, it's funny.
Quite true and insightful. Who _cares_ what the default browser is. If it's Firefox, then Firefox will have an "unfair advantage". Go get your browser packaged in an operating system by virtue of it's quality, not by virtue of law.
Then randomize the default browser. If you want to mandate that random samples be taken in order to ensure that the choice of browser conforms to some probability distribution, I'm sure that can be done.
The DirectX code would likely be a pile of dung. Most of the interesting things happen at the driver level and at the hardware level. After all, isn't Direct3D supposed to require hardware acceleration?
Everyone's said stupid things once in a while, right? If he's willing to say that he was an idiot for advocating pervasive restrictions in the wake of such an event, I could let it slide.
It's important to make a big deal about things like this, but don't completely lose it over this.
Speaking of Berne, let's not forget that the French were the ones who pushed hardest for that treaty in the first place. So thanks a whole lot for the shitty version of copyright.
And you're an asshole for making sweeping generalizations based on anecdotes and, most likely, for speaking about subjects on the sole basis of hearsay from idiot reporters.
You want a flame war? We can do that. Or, you stop believing in the fallacy of a single cause. Katrina was a natural disaster, an engineering disaster (with many complicated aspects), a governmental disaster (at all levels), and a humanitarian disaster (the most visible part). And Katrina is only a small part of the problem: you are apparently ignorant of the longstanding and ongoing ecological disaster which is the whole of southeast Louisiana.
DRTFA, but I'm guessing that they are doing this at the DNS level. So yeah, they're not getting the use of their domain name within China back unless the PRC says so. If that is the case, I would call that a hijack.
So, open drivers and/or specifications detailing how to operate the device significantly simplify the process of reverse-engineering to the point where opening up this information is cost-prohibitive?
CPUs have well-defined ISAs to shield the michroarchitectures from examination while still allowing users to operate the device. In those instances where there is firmware (i.e., Intel's mechanism), the firmware is opaque. How can an ISA be sooper-sekret information which cannot under any circumstances be made public?
As for other devices, those specifications detailing what needs to be set in what part of the I/O space to make the device work are just that revealing that making that info public is often cost-prohibitive?
Nobody this side of rms is asking for the source for anybody's firmware. That isn't usually needed to make a device work.
I can't help but believe that this is a massive failure in communication between hardware and software. And I don't mean the end products.
Yeah, I was going to berate you for getting rid of your Santa Cruz, since I'm still using mine with ALSA, but then I noticed why you couldn't use it anymore, so I went for the low-hanging fruit.:|
To what degree? Sure, it shows everyone what is happening in the hardware, but it doesn't say how it's being arrived at. I suppose that if some new kind of data is being fed to the hardware for some kind of performance gain, it may matter; and yet this isn't graphics where shaving three months off of reverse-engineering a competitor's product actually means something; this is the stagnant world of gaming audio, where most vendors do supply specs. For what other classes of desktop hardware (desktop, because most enterprise-class and embedded hardware has needed to play nicely with Linux for some time now) does this sort of "head start" on reverse-engineering really make that much of a net difference on the bottom line?
And BTW, GGP, what monopoly? I know ASUS has a good card aimed toward gamers which was successfully slashvertised (and reviewed elsewhere) and has been supported since 2.6.25, so I'm sure that if all Creative had left were their brand name, they still would be doing no worse than they are now, however well they are doing.
Releasing driver source code reveals most of the same information that is included in detailed technical specifications. It almost always includes enough info to make a compatible, competing product, and often has enough info to greatly simplify the process of reverse-engineering the device.
A hardware company like Creative should be wary of doing this - it could really hurt their monopoly on gaming-oriented sound cards.
Thanks for the assertion, but I don't think so. Why should I or anyone else believe you?
I had a wizard down to the end of the Dungeon. I had stopped playing for a while in order to catch up with Real Life. When I came back, I had forgotten all of the tricks, and a titan cast summon nasties around me in the Castle.
I even had a scroll of taming in my bag I could have tried, followed by invoking the Eye. FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUCK...
Wait, what? Neither I nor the GP mentioned "open source" or "open" anything else!
I think you miss the point more than I do. I saw the GP mention GUI design tools and then bring up his "design in place of code" request. I then infer from his comment which I quote that he wants someone to make a codebase that's both "cookie-cutter" and "swiss army knife" at the same time, which is just ridiculous: any time you need to change a behavior, if someone hasn't coded it for you, you'll need to code it for yourself, because code is how to issue commands to the fucking computer!
Still, the GP was speaking in such broad terms that what I inferred is probably (hopefully) not what he intended to communicate.
Slashdot Mirror
While the likelihood of Mono being a trap has come down over time, I'm still not very keen on installing or using it. So unless something important enough to me comes along that requires it, I will avoid anything which requires it.
procyon -- current desktop /.), will not go into soft-off/S5---it actually reboots instead, which is weird
renard -- former desktop, currently doing F@H, misc. server work (I took the suggestion from someone here at
mephitis -- old laptop (inoperable due to loose power jack)
fennec -- wireless router
lepus-crassus -- big, old clunker of a laptop my mother uses for Web and e-mail. That, and I think I had a certain stale meme on my mind at the time.
I have one name that pre-dates this motif: sanctuary, an old Pentium 2. I think I should rename it sloth. I have a machine that's nearly as good as procyon, integrated graphics notwithstanding, and I built it from mostly spare parts, so I'm just trying to figure out something appropriate for it. My new netbook (an Acer Aspire One) will have to wait until I get Slackware onto it before it gets a name better than localhost.
And I'd love the chance to take over my sister's old computer; it can be jumbo for its lack of memory (Wikipedia's list of famous elephants makes me sad).
And guess what: The scientist learned from his painful mistake, and moved on with the next batch, which was better as a result of the mistake. As you say, some doctors face the same issues - but they do face them, and society is better for it.
I think that if the end pursuit---not the intermediate discoveries, as they would most certainly be practical---weren't so vain, this would be more comfortable to me, and maybe a few others.
And don't try to argue that this wish in the back of many furries' minds isn't vain. There's no significant purpose other than personal taste to create a sentient creature whose external appearence is non-human. (And by "don't try to argue", by all means, please do if you wish; it will at least be entertaining if it isn't insightful.) :P
Also, my point about biological vs. cybernetic (I don't want to use that word, but I am lacking a better term) is that beyond a certain complexity, it is easier for us to emulate nature by building systems in terms we ourselves created (computers, logic, etc.) than to try to manipulate something we did not design. Accordingly, I think that emulation is the path of least resistence and the better one to take, for a multitude of reasons which I do not presently have the time to enumerate.
Strong AI and cyborg bodies are a far better alternative. I would think it easier to manipulate systems that we ourselves have created in the image of the biological, rather than trying to manipulate biology itself. I figure that we'll have to do less reverse-engineering, which is a a pain in the ass---we have a hard enough time trying to reverse-engineer human systems already, so imagine how much harder it would be to get the desired results.
And how can you not care about the price of failure with genetic manipulation? Yesterday, when this article was making the rounds at other sites, I recalled a vignette about the topic written by Will Sandborn in 1996---my imagination about the piece was better than the piece itself (I'll throw you a link when I get home, if you would like, but the title was something like "Worse than Failure"), but I think it accurately conveyed the cost of finding out that months or years into a young experimental anthropomorph's life, something has gone terminally wrong. And then imagine having to deal with it again and again and again, because with the kind of invasive changes that would have to be made with the genome, mistakes will occur, and some of them will not manifest for some time. I suppose if one is an oncologist or other health worker who regularly deals with cancer patients, then one has been desensitized to this kind of death, but short of that, how can you not feel sorry for the near-successes?
It's not about fixing anything. It's about being childish and spiteful.
And goddamn, it's funny.
Quite true and insightful. Who _cares_ what the default browser is. If it's Firefox, then Firefox will have an "unfair advantage". Go get your browser packaged in an operating system by virtue of it's quality, not by virtue of law.
Then randomize the default browser. If you want to mandate that random samples be taken in order to ensure that the choice of browser conforms to some probability distribution, I'm sure that can be done.
I don't think you emphasized SELL enough. ;)
The game and modern versions of SDL don't like each other.
As with many great Linux ports, icculus maintains the Linux version.
Older bug report
New bug report
Rule 34 on the Supreme Court.
Is that a request?
And you, sir, are and idiot^W^Wmixing in Fark-isms with your Slashdot discussion of /b/tarding.
Is Vala a usable option yet?
That's a good question.
I suspect that if it can be done for one's sex, it can be done for one's "species".
The DirectX code would likely be a pile of dung. Most of the interesting things happen at the driver level and at the hardware level. After all, isn't Direct3D supposed to require hardware acceleration?
Everyone's said stupid things once in a while, right? If he's willing to say that he was an idiot for advocating pervasive restrictions in the wake of such an event, I could let it slide.
It's important to make a big deal about things like this, but don't completely lose it over this.
Speaking of Berne, let's not forget that the French were the ones who pushed hardest for that treaty in the first place. So thanks a whole lot for the shitty version of copyright.
And you're an asshole for making sweeping generalizations based on anecdotes and, most likely, for speaking about subjects on the sole basis of hearsay from idiot reporters.
You want a flame war? We can do that. Or, you stop believing in the fallacy of a single cause. Katrina was a natural disaster, an engineering disaster (with many complicated aspects), a governmental disaster (at all levels), and a humanitarian disaster (the most visible part). And Katrina is only a small part of the problem: you are apparently ignorant of the longstanding and ongoing ecological disaster which is the whole of southeast Louisiana.
DRTFA, but I'm guessing that they are doing this at the DNS level. So yeah, they're not getting the use of their domain name within China back unless the PRC says so. If that is the case, I would call that a hijack.
So, open drivers and/or specifications detailing how to operate the device significantly simplify the process of reverse-engineering to the point where opening up this information is cost-prohibitive?
CPUs have well-defined ISAs to shield the michroarchitectures from examination while still allowing users to operate the device. In those instances where there is firmware (i.e., Intel's mechanism), the firmware is opaque. How can an ISA be sooper-sekret information which cannot under any circumstances be made public?
As for other devices, those specifications detailing what needs to be set in what part of the I/O space to make the device work are just that revealing that making that info public is often cost-prohibitive?
Nobody this side of rms is asking for the source for anybody's firmware. That isn't usually needed to make a device work.
I can't help but believe that this is a massive failure in communication between hardware and software. And I don't mean the end products.
Yeah, I was going to berate you for getting rid of your Santa Cruz, since I'm still using mine with ALSA, but then I noticed why you couldn't use it anymore, so I went for the low-hanging fruit. :|
Enjoy your VistAIDS.
To what degree? Sure, it shows everyone what is happening in the hardware, but it doesn't say how it's being arrived at. I suppose that if some new kind of data is being fed to the hardware for some kind of performance gain, it may matter; and yet this isn't graphics where shaving three months off of reverse-engineering a competitor's product actually means something; this is the stagnant world of gaming audio, where most vendors do supply specs. For what other classes of desktop hardware (desktop, because most enterprise-class and embedded hardware has needed to play nicely with Linux for some time now) does this sort of "head start" on reverse-engineering really make that much of a net difference on the bottom line?
And BTW, GGP, what monopoly? I know ASUS has a good card aimed toward gamers which was successfully slashvertised (and reviewed elsewhere) and has been supported since 2.6.25, so I'm sure that if all Creative had left were their brand name, they still would be doing no worse than they are now, however well they are doing.
Releasing driver source code reveals most of the same information that is included in detailed technical specifications. It almost always includes enough info to make a compatible, competing product, and often has enough info to greatly simplify the process of reverse-engineering the device.
A hardware company like Creative should be wary of doing this - it could really hurt their monopoly on gaming-oriented sound cards.
Thanks for the assertion, but I don't think so. Why should I or anyone else believe you?
The application says "anthroponomastic", not "anthropomorphic"! Get it right!
I had a wizard down to the end of the Dungeon. I had stopped playing for a while in order to catch up with Real Life. When I came back, I had forgotten all of the tricks, and a titan cast summon nasties around me in the Castle.
I even had a scroll of taming in my bag I could have tried, followed by invoking the Eye. FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUCK...
DO NOT WANT
Wait, what? Neither I nor the GP mentioned "open source" or "open" anything else!
I think you miss the point more than I do. I saw the GP mention GUI design tools and then bring up his "design in place of code" request. I then infer from his comment which I quote that he wants someone to make a codebase that's both "cookie-cutter" and "swiss army knife" at the same time, which is just ridiculous: any time you need to change a behavior, if someone hasn't coded it for you, you'll need to code it for yourself, because code is how to issue commands to the fucking computer!
Still, the GP was speaking in such broad terms that what I inferred is probably (hopefully) not what he intended to communicate.