Hahaha, I'm not from Spain. I'm from Argentina. And I hate the fucking stupid policy of the RAE and most Spanish people of "translate fucking everything".
You have to listen to Spaniards calling a firewall a "cortafuegos" and a motherboard a "placa madre".
I fully understand that it is a rounding error. They are using floor() instead of round().
Anyway, I put it that way because the parent post was implying that windows was better than GNU/Linux because in my case my OS was using 3.4% of CPU while showing 4 full video windows on an OpenGL Desktop, and running Apache, MySQL and several other daemons in the background, which he considered "idle", and he compared that to a windows os doing nothing that showed "0%".
We don't want them fixed. Nobody with any kind of real knowledge uses anything from microsoft. Don't come to me with that whole "they use it at my company". That means you have a shitty job, and you aren't really that good at what you do. If you are administrating windows servers, or any kind of windows-based service, you are on the shitty tier of IT recruitment.
Finding vulnerabilities in windows isn't really my area, or anywhere near it, but if it where, and I was seating on a 0-day, I would release it alongside both source and object of the PoC so the script kiddies can start using it right away.
Every single thing you just said is absolutely correct.
I must say, that when you said "Probably no one has this on their must-have!!1! list." regarding eSATA, you are half wrong. I do agree that most users don't, but I fucking love eSATA.
SATA is fucking great, and it solved all the stupid issues that IDE caused, while allowing me to build modest servers with consumer-grade very cheap disks (I would have never put an IDE drive on a server, SCSI all the way, but SATA is nice enough. Throw a software raid in the deal, and you have a cheap server that works just fine). Now, eSATA is paradise because it allowed me to trash all my desktops and use only my laptop. I can connect any disk natively to my laptop, now, how amazing is that? Yes, I know USB isn't that much slower than SATA, but it is noticeable. But that's not the most important thing: you are not connecting your disk natively. That means you lose some very important functions, like debug messages, sleep modes, and more importantly, SMART.
I usually connect ~10 different HDs to my machine every week. eSATA is the best thing ever.
Leaving that aside, connector compatibility and standardization is a must. Apple has always been one of the worst offenders regarding compatibility, and they will continue to be incompatible because they want to be "different".
I'm not talking about the actual piece of art. I'm talking about the content. Also, I'm not talking about what the law says. I'm talking about what should be. Ethics and the law not always go together, sadly.
Excuse me, what part of "since this machines are surveillance systems, 4 windows showing 352x288 video @30fps each, plus a fullscreen browser window that is constantly updated. Total CPU usage is ~3.4%." You didn't understand?
It's not compiz itself eating up that much processing power. It's the 4 threads capturing 352x288 video @30 fps, and displaying it in 4 different windows.
Also, it is IMPOSSIBLE for any operating system to be actively displaying how much CPU it is using while using 0% CPU. Answer: WINDOWS IS LYING TO YOU.
On the other hand, even if windows created some magic way to run out of thin air while using 0 processor power, it would mean nothing because it would still be completely useless.
I run compiz on several Atom 230 and 330. This are mini-itx mobos that have integrated Intel GMAs (Pineview series). I am checking this as we speak over SSH.
Compiz CPU usage: 2% Ram: 34MB.
This is with all settings turned up to 11, and, since this machines are surveillance systems, 4 windows showing 352x288 video @30fps each, plus a fullscreen browser window that is constantly updated.
Your question was answered before, by one of the greatest man to have ever lived:
--With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its "humanitarian" blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal. . . . For example, the worm of sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this misery!--The "equality of souls before God"--this fraud, this pretext for the rancunes of all the base-minded--this explosive concept, ending in revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing the whole social order--this is Christian dynamite. . . . The "humanitarian" blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! All this, to me, is the "humanitarianism" of Christianity!--Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its anaemic and "holy" ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,--against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul--against life itself. . . .
This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found--I have letters that even the blind will be able to see. . . . I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,--I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race. . . .
Wow. That is just brilliant. Nobody that knows me will buy it, though, they know I'm a recalcitrant Atheist. But I'll certainly use it among people that isn't yet aware of that fact.
Asshole, read my fucking post. Copyright is a modern law. Nobody 'owned' creations until recently.
Also, you don't own your creations. You just get a special right for a few years that allows you to control what people do with your creation. You still don't own it.
Bullshit. My country (Argentina) is 200 years old. I have native blood going back thousands of years into this land. I also have European blood. My ancestors where on both sides of the conflict 500 years ago. We've earned what we have. Maybe you understand your government as some magic entity that came to be out of nothing. I don't. We built this country. We built what we have. Yes, all of us have sort of lost control of the government, but in the end, we keep it up with taxes. So, it's not a magic entity giving as charity. It's us organizing, teaming up, and taking care of each other.
Well, the idea of property itself isn't unnatural.
The idea that Native Americans didn't believe in ownership is a myth. They did believe in ownership of everything they could actually use. Of course, nobody thought they could own the wind, because it was just there, they just breath the air and let it go, there was no purpose in owning air. In the same way, the myth comes from hunters-gatherers that had no use for land beyond sitting there. They were semi-nomads, and therefore, land wasn't important. No, they couldn't come into anyone's tent and take whatever they wanted. They did OWN their stuff. They just didn't own land because they didn't knew how to use it. That was only true for some primitive Natives, and that's where the myth originated. If you look at more advanced societies like the Incas, they did have a concept of land ownership. They had a kind of communism (that worked great for them), the society owned the land, and all of them practiced communal agriculture.
Other civilizations had different concepts of ownership, but they all had them. Even animals have a primitive, instinctive concept of ownership.
Now, translating that natural concept into the uncanny valley of owning ideas is just far fetched, and is just as unnatural as owning the sun.
I don't live in the United States. I proudly live where I was born and raised (Argentina).
On the other hand, I wasn't talking about legal issues. I was talking about right and wrong.
Also, that religious reverence you profess for your "Founding Fathers" is just a huge living Freudian case study. The fact that some guy 200 years ago thought something was right makes truly no difference today. He could have been wrong. Anyway, if your funding fathers were right, they were only right in their time. Lots of things change, and what was considered right 200 years ago has no reason to be considered right today.
Freedom is about being able to shape and affect the world anyway you want (and can), and it is about questioning anything you want. Even what your sacred founding fathers wrote.
No, I am not a Nazi. I am not racist either. I hate no one on any racial basis. Of course, I do have the right to oppose any particular political agenda. I reject the Nazi agenda. I also reject the jewish one. I don't reject either of them on any racial basis, I just oppose their worldview and their ideas. Nobody would call me a racist because I don't agree with Republicans or with Democrats. So, why should it be any different regarding Jews? I don't oppose their race. I only oppose the political ideas of their group. The fact that their group restricts allowance on a religious and racial basis makes THEM racist, not me.
Also, I don't see why I can't call out people on a religious basis. You can't choose your race, therefore, discriminating against you on that basis is unfair. But you do choose your religion. It's no different than political affiliation. Opposing a specific religion is no different that opposing a specific political party.
Considering that the word Fascism originates in Italy ~1920, and that censorship, control of the masses, extensive use of propaganda, and the use of the law as a tool of oppression are the ways of fascism, I think I used the word in a pretty accurate way.
You are actually right John. But I just can't help it. My friend, this things are related. Christianity is the depraved child of the most corrupt and perverted end of the Roman empire. That very concept shaped the modern occidental society. This concepts are truly christian concepts. Modern capitalism in itself is a christian idea. That's why those that understood everything that was wrong with Capitalism, like Marx and Engels did, understood that god was nothing but tool of oppression.
Anyway, I understand your point, and I certainly try to avoid anti-religious references when dealing with other subjects, but the sole mention of the catholic church causes me to rage and go into a blasphemous rant.
I was saying that copyright isn't natural, and you basically answered "Yes, that's why we had to create it, beautiful, isn't it?".
Everything that you said is so wrong, stupid and selfish at so many levels that I don't even know where to start. I will attribute this to the fact that you are a filthy jew, and therefore can't get into your thick skull the idea that there is something in this world that can't be exchanged for gold.
Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem to have wrong information regarding "copyright" and other fictitious concepts.
Copyright isn't an inalienable right. It isn't real property. It is imaginary property. Copyright is a recent concept. As recent as the Renaissance. Before that, you could own physical property, but Ideas were free. If you created a magnanimous work of art, that work of art belonged to the human kind. Then, you could earn a living by performing live, doing work for hire, etc. During the Renaissance, the catholic church, in their unstoppable hunger for power, tried to control the output of printers. They already had a very tight control on scribes, and they wanted to extend that control over to the modern press. The motive: To ban unwanted books. In a word: Censorship. This concept of owning ideas and controlling what you did with them was nothing but lies, just like the rest of christianity.
Later, governments jumped in on the boat, trying to control the press, for mostly the same reasons. Many, many years later, with the church mostly obsolete, and government under the control of corporations, our beloved corporate overlords wanted to hold the almighty power over free speech. So they were the ones that wrote the modern copyright laws.
Nobody owns ideas. Nobody owns art. They belong to the human kind. Period. Any attempt to control ideas is nothing but another fascist atempt at control of this Orwellian society.
But I do understand the POV of the creator. I do, because I am a creator too. And yes, we need to make a living just like anyone else. Now, there is a hugI de difference between the NEED to make a living, and some stupid god-given right to be given money just because we create. That won't work because a) there is no god and b) we have no such right. We decided that we wanted to create. Great. That doesn't allow us to control ideas. I do believe, like many other creators, that our creations are like our childs. You don't own your children. You have to feed them, care for them, and protect them until they are mature enough to have a life on their own. And then they are gone. They are as free as you are. Our need for food and shelter (read: money) doesn't change that basic principle.
You CAN profit from what you do, but always remember, you DON'T own your creations.
P.S: Regarding your screwdriver analogy, it doesn't work. It's been debunked several times before. Basically, your screwdriver is a physical object. A more valid analogy here would be if you made a house that was a replica of the house your friend was building. And it would be totally ok.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, that's horrible. The moral of the story is: Use Intel.
Hahaha, I'm not from Spain. I'm from Argentina. And I hate the fucking stupid policy of the RAE and most Spanish people of "translate fucking everything".
You have to listen to Spaniards calling a firewall a "cortafuegos" and a motherboard a "placa madre".
This is in France.
Just use the alternative used in Spain and other countries that speak latin languages. Fútbol FTW.
I fully understand that it is a rounding error. They are using floor() instead of round().
Anyway, I put it that way because the parent post was implying that windows was better than GNU/Linux because in my case my OS was using 3.4% of CPU while showing 4 full video windows on an OpenGL Desktop, and running Apache, MySQL and several other daemons in the background, which he considered "idle", and he compared that to a windows os doing nothing that showed "0%".
Well, ~50%. We all know the rest are lizard people from another planet.
We don't want them fixed. Nobody with any kind of real knowledge uses anything from microsoft. Don't come to me with that whole "they use it at my company". That means you have a shitty job, and you aren't really that good at what you do. If you are administrating windows servers, or any kind of windows-based service, you are on the shitty tier of IT recruitment.
Finding vulnerabilities in windows isn't really my area, or anywhere near it, but if it where, and I was seating on a 0-day, I would release it alongside both source and object of the PoC so the script kiddies can start using it right away.
Every single thing you just said is absolutely correct.
I must say, that when you said "Probably no one has this on their must-have!!1! list." regarding eSATA, you are half wrong. I do agree that most users don't, but I fucking love eSATA.
SATA is fucking great, and it solved all the stupid issues that IDE caused, while allowing me to build modest servers with consumer-grade very cheap disks (I would have never put an IDE drive on a server, SCSI all the way, but SATA is nice enough. Throw a software raid in the deal, and you have a cheap server that works just fine). Now, eSATA is paradise because it allowed me to trash all my desktops and use only my laptop. I can connect any disk natively to my laptop, now, how amazing is that? Yes, I know USB isn't that much slower than SATA, but it is noticeable. But that's not the most important thing: you are not connecting your disk natively. That means you lose some very important functions, like debug messages, sleep modes, and more importantly, SMART.
I usually connect ~10 different HDs to my machine every week. eSATA is the best thing ever.
Leaving that aside, connector compatibility and standardization is a must. Apple has always been one of the worst offenders regarding compatibility, and they will continue to be incompatible because they want to be "different".
Half of your "funding fathers" where slave owners.
I'm not talking about the actual piece of art. I'm talking about the content. Also, I'm not talking about what the law says. I'm talking about what should be. Ethics and the law not always go together, sadly.
Excuse me, what part of "since this machines are surveillance systems, 4 windows showing 352x288 video @30fps each, plus a fullscreen browser window that is constantly updated. Total CPU usage is ~3.4%." You didn't understand?
It's not compiz itself eating up that much processing power. It's the 4 threads capturing 352x288 video @30 fps, and displaying it in 4 different windows.
Also, it is IMPOSSIBLE for any operating system to be actively displaying how much CPU it is using while using 0% CPU. Answer: WINDOWS IS LYING TO YOU.
On the other hand, even if windows created some magic way to run out of thin air while using 0 processor power, it would mean nothing because it would still be completely useless.
I run compiz on several Atom 230 and 330. This are mini-itx mobos that have integrated Intel GMAs (Pineview series). I am checking this as we speak over SSH.
Compiz CPU usage: 2% Ram: 34MB.
This is with all settings turned up to 11, and, since this machines are surveillance systems, 4 windows showing 352x288 video @30fps each, plus a fullscreen browser window that is constantly updated.
Total CPU usage is ~3.4%.
Your question was answered before, by one of the greatest man to have ever lived:
--With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its "humanitarian" blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal. . . . For example, the worm of sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this misery!--The "equality of souls before God"--this fraud, this pretext for the rancunes of all the base-minded--this explosive concept, ending in revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing the whole social order--this is Christian dynamite. . . . The "humanitarian" blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! All this, to me, is the "humanitarianism" of Christianity!--Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its anaemic and "holy" ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,--against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul--against life itself. . . .
This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found--I have letters that even the blind will be able to see. . . . I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,--I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race. . . .
Wow. That is just brilliant. Nobody that knows me will buy it, though, they know I'm a recalcitrant Atheist. But I'll certainly use it among people that isn't yet aware of that fact.
Asshole, read my fucking post. Copyright is a modern law. Nobody 'owned' creations until recently.
Also, you don't own your creations. You just get a special right for a few years that allows you to control what people do with your creation. You still don't own it.
Bullshit. My country (Argentina) is 200 years old. I have native blood going back thousands of years into this land. I also have European blood. My ancestors where on both sides of the conflict 500 years ago. We've earned what we have. Maybe you understand your government as some magic entity that came to be out of nothing. I don't. We built this country. We built what we have. Yes, all of us have sort of lost control of the government, but in the end, we keep it up with taxes. So, it's not a magic entity giving as charity. It's us organizing, teaming up, and taking care of each other.
Well, the idea of property itself isn't unnatural.
The idea that Native Americans didn't believe in ownership is a myth. They did believe in ownership of everything they could actually use. Of course, nobody thought they could own the wind, because it was just there, they just breath the air and let it go, there was no purpose in owning air. In the same way, the myth comes from hunters-gatherers that had no use for land beyond sitting there. They were semi-nomads, and therefore, land wasn't important. No, they couldn't come into anyone's tent and take whatever they wanted. They did OWN their stuff. They just didn't own land because they didn't knew how to use it. That was only true for some primitive Natives, and that's where the myth originated. If you look at more advanced societies like the Incas, they did have a concept of land ownership. They had a kind of communism (that worked great for them), the society owned the land, and all of them practiced communal agriculture.
Other civilizations had different concepts of ownership, but they all had them. Even animals have a primitive, instinctive concept of ownership.
Now, translating that natural concept into the uncanny valley of owning ideas is just far fetched, and is just as unnatural as owning the sun.
I don't live in the United States. I proudly live where I was born and raised (Argentina).
On the other hand, I wasn't talking about legal issues. I was talking about right and wrong.
Also, that religious reverence you profess for your "Founding Fathers" is just a huge living Freudian case study. The fact that some guy 200 years ago thought something was right makes truly no difference today. He could have been wrong. Anyway, if your funding fathers were right, they were only right in their time. Lots of things change, and what was considered right 200 years ago has no reason to be considered right today.
Freedom is about being able to shape and affect the world anyway you want (and can), and it is about questioning anything you want. Even what your sacred founding fathers wrote.
No, I am not a Nazi. I am not racist either. I hate no one on any racial basis. Of course, I do have the right to oppose any particular political agenda. I reject the Nazi agenda. I also reject the jewish one. I don't reject either of them on any racial basis, I just oppose their worldview and their ideas. Nobody would call me a racist because I don't agree with Republicans or with Democrats. So, why should it be any different regarding Jews? I don't oppose their race. I only oppose the political ideas of their group. The fact that their group restricts allowance on a religious and racial basis makes THEM racist, not me.
Also, I don't see why I can't call out people on a religious basis. You can't choose your race, therefore, discriminating against you on that basis is unfair. But you do choose your religion. It's no different than political affiliation. Opposing a specific religion is no different that opposing a specific political party.
Considering that the word Fascism originates in Italy ~1920, and that censorship, control of the masses, extensive use of propaganda, and the use of the law as a tool of oppression are the ways of fascism, I think I used the word in a pretty accurate way.
You are actually right John. But I just can't help it. My friend, this things are related. Christianity is the depraved child of the most corrupt and perverted end of the Roman empire. That very concept shaped the modern occidental society. This concepts are truly christian concepts. Modern capitalism in itself is a christian idea. That's why those that understood everything that was wrong with Capitalism, like Marx and Engels did, understood that god was nothing but tool of oppression.
Anyway, I understand your point, and I certainly try to avoid anti-religious references when dealing with other subjects, but the sole mention of the catholic church causes me to rage and go into a blasphemous rant.
Your argument is wrong and empty.
I was saying that copyright isn't natural, and you basically answered "Yes, that's why we had to create it, beautiful, isn't it?".
Everything that you said is so wrong, stupid and selfish at so many levels that I don't even know where to start. I will attribute this to the fact that you are a filthy jew, and therefore can't get into your thick skull the idea that there is something in this world that can't be exchanged for gold.
You sir, are awesome.
Hello there Jason.
Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem to have wrong information regarding "copyright" and other fictitious concepts.
Copyright isn't an inalienable right. It isn't real property. It is imaginary property. Copyright is a recent concept. As recent as the Renaissance. Before that, you could own physical property, but Ideas were free. If you created a magnanimous work of art, that work of art belonged to the human kind. Then, you could earn a living by performing live, doing work for hire, etc. During the Renaissance, the catholic church, in their unstoppable hunger for power, tried to control the output of printers. They already had a very tight control on scribes, and they wanted to extend that control over to the modern press. The motive: To ban unwanted books. In a word: Censorship. This concept of owning ideas and controlling what you did with them was nothing but lies, just like the rest of christianity.
Later, governments jumped in on the boat, trying to control the press, for mostly the same reasons. Many, many years later, with the church mostly obsolete, and government under the control of corporations, our beloved corporate overlords wanted to hold the almighty power over free speech. So they were the ones that wrote the modern copyright laws.
Nobody owns ideas. Nobody owns art. They belong to the human kind. Period. Any attempt to control ideas is nothing but another fascist atempt at control of this Orwellian society.
But I do understand the POV of the creator. I do, because I am a creator too. And yes, we need to make a living just like anyone else. Now, there is a hugI de difference between the NEED to make a living, and some stupid god-given right to be given money just because we create. That won't work because a) there is no god and b) we have no such right. We decided that we wanted to create. Great. That doesn't allow us to control ideas. I do believe, like many other creators, that our creations are like our childs. You don't own your children. You have to feed them, care for them, and protect them until they are mature enough to have a life on their own. And then they are gone. They are as free as you are. Our need for food and shelter (read: money) doesn't change that basic principle.
You CAN profit from what you do, but always remember, you DON'T own your creations.
P.S: Regarding your screwdriver analogy, it doesn't work. It's been debunked several times before. Basically, your screwdriver is a physical object. A more valid analogy here would be if you made a house that was a replica of the house your friend was building. And it would be totally ok.
Sincerely,
Sebastian.
And yet, something like http://slashdot.org/submission/1274594/Is-Ubuntu-becoming-unnecessarily-complex goes unnoticed.