> ICANN seems to forget some things, it is wholy supported by the US government on US soil.
What do you mean by supported? If you mean by "supported", the current state of things is supported (preferred) by the US government, then you are right. If you mean with "supported" paid, then maybe you can show me in the budget the paycheck is listed, because I can't find it.
From what I've heard, 2/3 of the funding of the ICANN comes from Europe.
> I would not underestimate the US influence, but nor do I fear it.
Which people rebelled against taxation without representation? And why? Because they feared the English influence?
A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer, here we come
on
ARGs And The Female Gamer
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So, how long will it take, until we get away from leveling/looting RPG games, to more story based online-games, where there are semi-professional players/actors, which will drive indiviual storylines in MMORPGs?
Putting Diamond Age and the current article together, it seems the logical step.
> So, how can you loose, say, $10 million in making a movie and come out ahead. Surely Germany will not actually GIVE you $10 million in replacement. Can sombody explain this or provide hard numbers for the financially challenged?
I understand it the following way: Say, you're a resident of Germany and make 10 million EUR profit in some way or another, Germany taxes that profit. But, when you reinvest that money, the government will not tax it. It will only tax the profits from that investment. But, what when the investment is not profitable? Well, then it is a loss, and losses aren't taxed.
So, instead of paying a, say, 20% tax, you make a loss of 10%, which is gives you practically a plus of 1 million EUR.
The idea was, that this money is invested in "hard" things, like factories, machinery, and the like, which have a real value.
Almost as interesting as subsidiaries in one nation buying from the main company in different nation compontents to excessive prices, in order to turn their profits in said nation to zero, and pay only taxes in the country of the main company, where the taxes are coincidentally much lower than in the country the profits were originally made.
Usually, religion gives you simple moral rules. Don't kill (more than necessary), don't steal (from the wrong people), better keep a distance from those cultists , which like to eat other humans (with a long spear), don't use electric equipment under the shower (never). Often simple rules, which everyone in their right mind would follow and generally a good thing. But since they are simple, they usually don't do it, and have a long list of excemptions usually in the form of some annecdotal notes.
So, this codex is usually some large, inconsistent, cobbled together scripture, which is written in a language, which no one speaks in that form anymore and often relate to situations, which don't happen anymore. So, the whole thing is open to interpretation.
And here lies the problem. It claims to be the ultimate law, given by some infailable, omnipotent, omnipresent entitity (thank you, Star Trek, for that vocabulary). So, you can't discuss it. It is The Truth.
So, some people, or a even whole society, not only free themselves from a guilt of trespassing some common acceptable rule, like, say, not to kill, but make it also their Entities Name given obligation to kill as many people as possible.
> the RCC, if anything, was a moderating influence that helped preserve literacy and civilization through the worst of the middle ages.
Really? Ah, nothing goes above organised a witch-hunt... From what I know, most of the knowledge of the antique destroyed by christians as heretic was preserved under Muslim rule. Most of the knowledge, strangely enough, reimported during the crusades. That is also where the "noble" men got the idea, that it might be a good idea to occasionally wash themselves, and learn to read and write, and have some people, which know mathematics and that there is more to building a strong building than a lot of stones (Hey, Renaissance, here we come). But, I admit, that is a very simplified view.
> socialism is government being mommy and daddy providing for needs, controlling and subsidizing unprofitable industry, and promoting mediocrity.
No, it is not. It is what opponents associate with socialism. Especially, when phrased the way you do. If formulated less biased, it can be one form of socialism. (Statecontrolled production with social-security networks)
> I'm not saying the music should be free, I am saying that the recording industry needs to be brought down to erect a new business model where the recording artist are the profit center, not the recording industry. Socialism my ass, this is a Revolution.
Bringing the owning class down and to empower those people actually working in some kind of revolution for the common good is a traditional socialist position. And even one of the more radical one. Calling it business model is nothing more than a fig leaf.
> You two are saying the same thing...get rid of lazy students as soon as possible.
No. It seems, I didn't make my point clear enough.
I was saying two things: Some lazy students may be actually better students than the eager ones, given the correct environment. An environment, which is probably also better for all students. Second: Once you have accepted a student, you better make the best out of him/her till the end. Otherwise, it will be quite rightly interpreted as a failure of the university.
> An effective way to produce good graduates is to help the slackers flunk out early.
It isn't. For several reasons
> The higher your dropout rate, the more students you can admit, and the greater your odds of admitting someone who will someday make you proud.
No. The more students you admit, the more students you have to take care of until they drop out, and do not contribute to the success of the university (by either fame or money). And the more "rough-diamonds" may slip through your fingers, because you can't pay the attention on each and every student. Dropped-out students are overhead. That is exactly the reason, why universities put such an emphasis on entry examinations.
The next reason is: The higher the drop-out rate, the fewer students will come. How many people are willing to take such a risk? Not to mention the psychological effects, the high pressure will drive up the suicide rate, which is also bad publicity.
Finally, you are assuming that slackers have a low potential. But slacking (often) lowers the performance of any student, regardless of their abilities. And strangely enough, especially some high-potentials are among the slackers.
Futhermore, universities are usually getting paid for having the reputation of producing good graduates and several get more money from alumni then from current students. If the students are goofing around too much, both revenue streams may soon become dry. So, it is in their own interest to minimise the negative impact of WLAN in classrooms.
It always puzzles me, how people think, that natural is some indicator for being harmless. You know, like: "Here my love, take that medecine, it is made from plants, perfectly harmless, all natural", which triggers my reposte, "So, is a cup of hemlock ".
What puzzles me even more, is that you take such a perfect counter-example as an argument.
The only instruction, which comes to mind, is the CMOV instruction, which is not implemented on pre-Nehemia C3 processors (e.g. Ezra). But AFAIK, Ubuntu is compiled with -march=i386, so it should not use the instruction, unless you installed some i686-specific packet (libc6-i686, kernel-686,...).
Those are the words of Linus Torvalds in response to someone suggesting that Reiser4 should be merged, in order to stay competetive with WinFS and Spotlight. To counter the reasoning, Linus Torvalds stated the following seperate points:
1. WinFS is not the real filesystem, the real filesystem (NTFS) still runs in kernel mode. WinFS is "merely" a set of libraries in user-space, like gnome-storage. So, you can't derive a need to push such functionality into the Linux kernel. 2. Trying to push some functionality into the kernel with the reason to compete with Microsofts development won't work, because they do what they think is right, not in order to compete with someone else.
All bodies in the EU are democratically elected. The difference is the way and how directly.
The EP is the only body directly elected by the people. So, some/many people think it should the final authorative on European matters.
On the other hand, there is the Council of Ministers. The ministers are representing the various (also democratically) elected goverments of the various countries. Since the EU is no state, other people argue that the respective governments should be authorative on most matters.
In the first case, the EU is more like a state. In the latter case, the EU is more like a federation of states.
The recent rejection of the European Constitution in France and the Netherlands gave the latter group a stronger footing. First, the rejection of the national governments were considered a major factor in the rejection of the constitution. This shows how much more important to the people national matters are over European matters. Second, the constitution would have given the parliament more power.
> with the new constitution the elected body (EP) will at least be able to vote on the budget.
The budget has already to be approved by the EP (with the exception of the subvention of agriculture). That is the case since Maastricht, if my memory serves right.
> But then why bother with C++ at all in that case?
One can use function overloading, operator overloading, classes, templates, multiple-inheritance, when one wants to. Each single of them. But one doesn't have to.
Yes, all those things can make your code more complicated, but they can also make your code easier. The question is, whose fault is it, when the first happens?
It is all a matter of me making a (hopefully) intelligent and educated decision at each point in the code. And if sensible, one can even write vanilla C89 in some segments. But one isn't forced to.
> But it also has some incredibly ugly areas as well, add-ons stuck to the side with duct tape and oatmeal.
Yes, the syntax is quite ugly. And it shows that it was more of a bastardisation of C than a clean new language. Still, duct-tape is quite handy. And I prefer duct-tape over the following: - Sticking to pure C and realise polymorphy by reimplementing C++ via my own object system in C with function-pointers and structs and heavy casting for collections. - Scrapping C altogether and go for a clean new object oriented language, like C#, which, say, doesn't allow me to modify my pointer the way I want, because I might hurt myself.
> [...] HomerMobile can be more painful than driving a Civic.
Actually, no. To stay with your analogy: Neither C, nor C++ are fully built cars. They are more like kits. And who is to blame when you built a HomerMobile of the latter?
> As for C++, it's C-- as far as I'm concerned. I honestly can't think of a more painful language to program in.
For all intents and purposes C++ is a superset of C (ignoring C99). So, how can be C++ more painful to program in?
Show me C-code, which cannot be used in C++ (excluding with the most trivial changes, like dynamic arrays to std::vector).
Then try to realise the C++ code which Alexandrescu showed in "Modern C++ Design" in C and compare the results.
Heck, even if I'd have to program purely imperative, I'd still choose C++ over C purely for the possibility to use of STL, Boost and other C++-libraries.
Yes, the errors on templates can be hard to parse. Yes, the peculiarities of inheritance, virtual functions and the various algorithms and data-structures of STL can be quite disturbing.
But here is the kicker: You don't have to use any of them, but you can if you want.
> i.e. need to remove current tagged version from tag, then copy from the main branch over to the tag, then update this on the live server
Do I understand you correctly? You prefer CVS over SVN because you can do a deployment with two (non-atomic) commandos (tag,update) instead with three (atomic) ones (remove,copy,update)?
I'm sure I'm missing something.
Otherwise, one could use a post-commit hook, which is triggered by a remove, which creates the tag from the branches.
Or one could check in the script itself, which pulls the newest version, and pull that automatically on the server side. When there is a new revision, one changes the script to point to the new tag, which would also provide one with a better atomicity.
Or one checks in a configuration file for the script.
No. If you had no cache, there would be no need for a flush command. The flush command exists purely for the reason of flushing buffer and caches on the harddisc. The ATA-5 specifies the command as E7h (and as mandatory).
The command is specified in practically in all storage interfaces for exactly the reason the author cited, integrity. Otherwise, you can't assure integrity without sacrificing a lot of performance.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, that is simple:
> quintiplitilion unptuplatillion multuplatillion impossibidillion fantasticatrillion
stand all for 1 and
> three cubic acres
a "cubic acre" stands exactly for the amount of volume required to house $2.73 billion in gold coins.
> ICANN seems to forget some things, it is wholy supported by the US government on US soil.
What do you mean by supported? If you mean by "supported", the current state of things is supported (preferred) by the US government, then you are right. If you mean with "supported" paid, then maybe you can show me in the budget the paycheck is listed, because I can't find it.
From what I've heard, 2/3 of the funding of the ICANN comes from Europe.
> I would not underestimate the US influence, but nor do I fear it.
Which people rebelled against taxation without representation? And why? Because they feared the English influence?
So, how long will it take, until we get away from leveling/looting RPG games, to more story based online-games, where there are semi-professional players/actors, which will drive indiviual storylines in MMORPGs?
Putting Diamond Age and the current article together, it seems the logical step.
> So, how can you loose, say, $10 million in making a movie and come out ahead. Surely Germany will not actually GIVE you $10 million in replacement. Can sombody explain this or provide hard numbers for the financially challenged?
I understand it the following way: Say, you're a resident of Germany and make 10 million EUR profit in some way or another, Germany taxes that profit. But, when you reinvest that money, the government will not tax it. It will only tax the profits from that investment. But, what when the investment is not profitable? Well, then it is a loss, and losses aren't taxed.
So, instead of paying a, say, 20% tax, you make a loss of 10%, which is gives you practically a plus of 1 million EUR.
The idea was, that this money is invested in "hard" things, like factories, machinery, and the like, which have a real value.
Almost as interesting as subsidiaries in one nation buying from the main company in different nation compontents to excessive prices, in order to turn their profits in said nation to zero, and pay only taxes in the country of the main company, where the taxes are coincidentally much lower than in the country the profits were originally made.
... problems and their handling.
Usually, religion gives you simple moral rules. Don't kill (more than necessary), don't steal (from the wrong people), better keep a distance from those cultists , which like to eat other humans (with a long spear), don't use electric equipment under the shower (never). Often simple rules, which everyone in their right mind would follow and generally a good thing. But since they are simple, they usually don't do it, and have a long list of excemptions usually in the form of some annecdotal notes.
So, this codex is usually some large, inconsistent, cobbled together scripture, which is written in a language, which no one speaks in that form anymore and often relate to situations, which don't happen anymore. So, the whole thing is open to interpretation.
And here lies the problem. It claims to be the ultimate law, given by some infailable, omnipotent, omnipresent entitity (thank you, Star Trek, for that vocabulary). So, you can't discuss it. It is The Truth.
So, some people, or a even whole society, not only free themselves from a guilt of trespassing some common acceptable rule, like, say, not to kill, but make it also their Entities Name given obligation to kill as many people as possible.
> the RCC, if anything, was a moderating influence that helped preserve literacy and civilization through the worst of the middle ages.
Really? Ah, nothing goes above organised a witch-hunt... From what I know, most of the knowledge of the antique destroyed by christians as heretic was preserved under Muslim rule. Most of the knowledge, strangely enough, reimported during the crusades.
That is also where the "noble" men got the idea, that it might be a good idea to occasionally wash themselves, and learn to read and write, and have some people, which know mathematics and that there is more to building a strong building than a lot of stones (Hey, Renaissance, here we come).
But, I admit, that is a very simplified view.
> Whether it should have also sponsored a war to recapture Byzantium is debatable
Ah... so the crusades to "liberate" the Jerusalem have been okay?
> As far as poverty and ignorance go, the Islamic Mediterranean was in many ways pretty advanced in both commerce and scholarship.
Not only that, Judaism and non-roman-catholic christian sects faird a lot better in Al-Andalus than in the north.
> But, yeah, they still oppressed women (more so than the average Christian community to the north).
Really? What kind of rights did women have under Christian rule, which they did not have under Muslim rule? Ownership? Inheritance? Testimony?
> Violence and poverty and death are human problems, not religious problems
Well, what is religion, but a shape of human
> socialism is government being mommy and daddy providing for needs, controlling and subsidizing unprofitable industry, and promoting mediocrity.
No, it is not. It is what opponents associate with socialism. Especially, when phrased the way you do. If formulated less biased, it can be one form of socialism. (Statecontrolled production with social-security networks)
> I'm not saying the music should be free, I am saying that the recording industry needs to be brought down to erect a new business model where the recording artist are the profit center, not the recording industry. Socialism my ass, this is a Revolution.
Bringing the owning class down and to empower those people actually working in some kind of revolution for the common good is a traditional socialist position. And even one of the more radical one. Calling it business model is nothing more than a fig leaf.
> You two are saying the same thing...get rid of lazy students as soon as possible.
No. It seems, I didn't make my point clear enough.
I was saying two things: Some lazy students may be actually better students than the eager ones, given the correct environment. An environment, which is probably also better for all students. Second: Once you have accepted a student, you better make the best out of him/her till the end. Otherwise, it will be quite rightly interpreted as a failure of the university.
> An effective way to produce good graduates is to help the slackers flunk out early.
It isn't. For several reasons
> The higher your dropout rate, the more students you can admit, and the greater your odds of admitting someone who will someday make you proud.
No. The more students you admit, the more students you have to take care of until they drop out, and do not contribute to the success of the university (by either fame or money). And the more "rough-diamonds" may slip through your fingers, because you can't pay the attention on each and every student. Dropped-out students are overhead. That is exactly the reason, why universities put such an emphasis on entry examinations.
The next reason is: The higher the drop-out rate, the fewer students will come. How many people are willing to take such a risk? Not to mention the psychological effects, the high pressure will drive up the suicide rate, which is also bad publicity.
Finally, you are assuming that slackers have a low potential. But slacking (often) lowers the performance of any student, regardless of their abilities. And strangely enough, especially some high-potentials are among the slackers.
Futhermore, universities are usually getting paid for having the reputation of producing good graduates and several get more money from alumni then from current students. If the students are goofing around too much, both revenue streams may soon become dry.
So, it is in their own interest to minimise the negative impact of WLAN in classrooms.
> Naturally occuring substance
It always puzzles me, how people think, that natural is some indicator for being harmless. You know, like: "Here my love, take that medecine, it is made from plants, perfectly harmless, all natural", which triggers my reposte, "So, is a cup of hemlock ".
What puzzles me even more, is that you take such a perfect counter-example as an argument.
> How many people know about this? Nobody!
Only those, which know of Futexes.
The only instruction, which comes to mind, is the CMOV instruction, which is not implemented on pre-Nehemia C3 processors (e.g. Ezra). But AFAIK, Ubuntu is compiled with -march=i386, so it should not use the instruction, unless you installed some i686-specific packet (libc6-i686, kernel-686, ...).
Yeah. It sounds strangely similar to Tomasulos-algorithm. I can't believe that this is the main point of the new approach.
How about linking to the frickin' homepage of the project
export LC_ALL=es_CU@utf-8
Those are the words of Linus Torvalds in response to someone suggesting that Reiser4 should be merged, in order to stay competetive with WinFS and Spotlight. To counter the reasoning, Linus Torvalds stated the following seperate points:
1. WinFS is not the real filesystem, the real filesystem (NTFS) still runs in kernel mode. WinFS is "merely" a set of libraries in user-space, like gnome-storage. So, you can't derive a need to push such functionality into the Linux kernel.
2. Trying to push some functionality into the kernel with the reason to compete with Microsofts development won't work, because they do what they think is right, not in order to compete with someone else.
All bodies in the EU are democratically elected. The difference is the way and how directly.
The EP is the only body directly elected by the people. So, some/many people think it should the final authorative on European matters.
On the other hand, there is the Council of Ministers. The ministers are representing the various (also democratically) elected goverments of the various countries. Since the EU is no state, other people argue that the respective governments should be authorative on most matters.
In the first case, the EU is more like a state. In the latter case, the EU is more like a federation of states.
The recent rejection of the European Constitution in France and the Netherlands gave the latter group a stronger footing.
First, the rejection of the national governments were considered a major factor in the rejection of the constitution. This shows how much more important to the people national matters are over European matters.
Second, the constitution would have given the parliament more power.
> with the new constitution the elected body (EP) will at least be able to vote on the budget.
The budget has already to be approved by the EP (with the exception of the subvention of agriculture).
That is the case since Maastricht, if my memory serves right.
> But then why bother with C++ at all in that case?
One can use function overloading, operator overloading, classes, templates, multiple-inheritance, when one wants to. Each single of them. But one doesn't have to.
Yes, all those things can make your code more complicated, but they can also make your code easier. The question is, whose fault is it, when the first happens?
It is all a matter of me making a (hopefully) intelligent and educated decision at each point in the code. And if sensible, one can even write vanilla C89 in some segments. But one isn't forced to.
> But it also has some incredibly ugly areas as well, add-ons stuck to the side with duct tape and oatmeal.
Yes, the syntax is quite ugly. And it shows that it was more of a bastardisation of C than a clean new language. Still, duct-tape is quite handy. And I prefer duct-tape over the following:
- Sticking to pure C and realise polymorphy by reimplementing C++ via my own object system in C with function-pointers and structs and heavy casting for collections.
- Scrapping C altogether and go for a clean new object oriented language, like C#, which, say, doesn't allow me to modify my pointer the way I want, because I might hurt myself.
> [...] HomerMobile can be more painful than driving a Civic.
Actually, no. To stay with your analogy: Neither C, nor C++ are fully built cars. They are more like kits. And who is to blame when you built a HomerMobile of the latter?
> As for C++, it's C-- as far as I'm concerned. I honestly can't think of a more painful language to program in.
For all intents and purposes C++ is a superset of C (ignoring C99). So, how can be C++ more painful to program in?
Show me C-code, which cannot be used in C++ (excluding with the most trivial changes, like dynamic arrays to std::vector).
Then try to realise the C++ code which Alexandrescu showed in "Modern C++ Design" in C and compare the results.
Heck, even if I'd have to program purely imperative, I'd still choose C++ over C purely for the possibility to use of STL, Boost and other C++-libraries.
Yes, the errors on templates can be hard to parse. Yes, the peculiarities of inheritance, virtual functions and the various algorithms and data-structures of STL can be quite disturbing.
But here is the kicker: You don't have to use any of them, but you can if you want.
"That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves." - Kim Stanley Robinson,
> i.e. need to remove current tagged version from tag, then copy from the main branch over to the tag, then update this on the live server
Do I understand you correctly? You prefer CVS over SVN because you can do a deployment with two (non-atomic) commandos (tag,update) instead with three (atomic) ones (remove,copy,update)?
I'm sure I'm missing something.
Otherwise, one could use a post-commit hook, which is triggered by a remove, which creates the tag from the branches.
Or one could check in the script itself, which pulls the newest version, and pull that automatically on the server side.
When there is a new revision, one changes the script to point to the new tag, which would also provide one with a better atomicity.
Or one checks in a configuration file for the script.
That may be the keywords for a more extensive google search.
Here is one for 860EUR, there may be cheeper ones. Just make sure your area is covered.
Don't know about the services available in Sweden, but it is also technical feasible to provide a localisation service with a GSM mobile alone.
No. If you had no cache, there would be no need for a flush command. The flush command exists purely for the reason of flushing buffer and caches on the harddisc. The ATA-5 specifies the command as E7h (and as mandatory).
The command is specified in practically in all storage interfaces for exactly the reason the author cited, integrity. Otherwise, you can't assure integrity without sacrificing a lot of performance.
I vote for Danae.