I didn't know that Alaska was self-sufficient. It isn't? Well, I guess you failed to outrun climate change, then.
Those who nuke themselves deserve what they get
And this, here, is why these debates are pointless: the choices are between returning to pre-industrial lifestyle, which means that most people die and the survivors live in misery, and building nuclear power, which is scary, so at the end of the day we continue spewing carbon dioxide while fantasizing about windmills or climate change not happening.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. I doubt Slashdot will fare better.
Anything and everything it can get away with. It's a corporation, it has no capability for conscience or empathy.
Give a free full ride to anyone who asks?
Sure, why not? That has worked perfectly fine wherever it has been tried, with the Nordic welfare countries being perhaps the most triumphant example. It turns out that in a reasonably healthy culture the slackers will ultimately consume little (lacking the ambition for truly epic leeching schemes) so those who use the opportunity of free education to reach for the stars more than make up for them.
It needs to know how to probe and reference btrfs subvolumes.
Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. If your "/boot" is in a dedicated partition (as it should be) with a Grub2-supported filesystem (such as ext3), and Grub2 can thus read the kernel image into memory, why should it have any further requirements?
Seriously, why do you want to deal with advanced filesystems in the bootloader? What do you expect to gain from that, other than putting completely pointless limits to their complexity? Just accept that you'll need to sacrtifce about 100MB or so for a boot partition (about 0.01 percent of a typical 1 terabyte hard disk) and you don't need to worry about whether Grub knows about btrfs subvolumes or not.
But they can't help but wonder how many of these people would still require food stamps if they sold their car.
And once the money from the car runs out, they're right back on food stamps. Except that they now either lack a car, which makes it far less likely that they'll find a job, or drive an older car which gets worse mileage and higher maintenance costs.
Insisting that people exhaust all their resources before they are eligible for receiving help is understandable, but it's also stupid.
Why are corporations the only alternative? Why wouldn't you prefer rely on yourself?
Why would you prefer to rely on yourself in a moment of weakness - such as injury or illness - rather than cashing in on the benefits of living in a society? Why pretend that you're alone when you're not?
Codify workers rights in LAW, not illegal pooling of power.
Historically, the only way to get worker rights codified in LAW has been for workers to join together and give the politicians the choice between that and a communist revolution.
Also, I'm not sure exactly what laws you're referring to when you declare pooling of power to be illegal. Care to elaborate?
No, they aren't. Corporations are legal constructs made of legal fiction. They may or may not have legal relationships - such as ownership or employment - to people, but they are not made of people.
People have rights. Those rights cannot be taken away (being inalienable and all). So, no, "corporations" don't have rights, but the people who own those corporations *do*.
And nobody's suggested taking their rights away. But tell me: if I draw a cartoon, do the characters in that cartoon have legal rights? Do I get in trouble if I draw a piano falling on them? No? Then why should any other fictitious construct - such as a corporation - have them?
In a sense, those corporations sure are people.
By your logic, Pythagora's Theorem is a person.
You want to rail against corporate abuse? Get rid of the lack of responsibilities. It's that, more than anything, that makes corporations misbehave. The problem isn't the "personhood" of the corporation, but the half-personhood.
So how do you propose throwing a corporation behind bars? The worst you can do to a corporation is give it a (usually ridiculously small) fine, and even then we get a chorus of people bitterly explaining how it'll simply pass it on to the customers (not that that's relevant for a patent troll or other nonproductive parasites).
A fictitious entity cannot be held responsible for anything because it does not exist, thus it shouldn't have rights either.
Re:Desktops were also locked down under
on
Linux 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
Changes for most system components are handled in exactly the same way and with the same priorities as high-level applications, and apps get to make dependency demands on the inner workings of the system.
As opposed to what? Apps that don't make any demands on what API calls and libraries are available or what they do?
There is no clear distinction between system and apps for anything being updated, added or removed.
Truly, it's horrible to have just one update daemon, rather than one per application.
These maladies are the main reason why "desktop Linux" didn't succeed.
Actually, it seems to have succeeded just fine, judging by the continued existence and development of several desktop Linux distributions.
With everything else from the 80's returning, He-Man must be somewhere in the queue. Then perhaps we could have rule 34 combining the two. Not that that's relevant to my interests. At all.
We will have a full description for each standard - only 5a & 5b at first, but then those will both fork to make HTML5aa, HTML5ab, and HTML5ba, 5bb.
No no no, you misunderstand. The whole idea of a "living standard" is that you have no way to refer to revisions b, ba or bb, but rather just have to hope that the browser will guess the intended meaning of your markup correctly. Which it probably won't, being roughly as intelligent as a particularly retarded earthworm. But I guess failure is part of being alive.
I just can't help but remember back when we also had a "living standard", meaning that nobody really knew how a particular document should or would be interpreted, and how it took years to hammer into people's heads the importance of including the HTML version information in their pages. Perhaps it's been long enough for the lessons of yesterday to be forgotten and in need of being re-learnt. Except that this time we have a far more complex mesh of HTML, CSS and Javascript to deal with, so this should be a popcorn-worthy farce.
There is no good way to do 3D. A web app should have direct access to an OpenGL.
Fun fact: modern graphics cards don't support pre-emptive multitasking. This is why Bitcoin miners have a setting which controls how long the app holds the card before yielding. Set it too high and your desktop basically hangs. Now imagine every web "designer" out there being able to do the same thing.
Also... why would web apps need 3D? Very few desktop apps have any use for 3D. Almost all applications deal with things that simply don't map to spatial relationships at all, much less to 3D space specifically. Add the increased resource consumption per page (which makes it harder to do heavy multi-tab browsing) and harder navigation (because 45 degree field of view to 3D space is simply inferior to a flat page that scrolls down in almost all situations), and I for one hope that 3D stays out of HTML for years to come.
But, even in the case that someone could come up with a compelling case for 3D, why would the web pages need direct access to the underlaying API when even game developers use middleware engines nowadays?
Google is a private company, not public infrastructure.
Since we allow private companies to grow without limit, this is not necessarily true. "With great power comes great responsibility", and frankly, it's about time we stop pretending that the word "private" excuses you from it.
A normal (non-narcissistic) person is aware that there are things known to others that are not known to him.
A normal (non-narcissistic) person also demands pretty extraordinary proof before letting people be put on FBI databases because they used a period in a Twitter post. In fact, a non-narcissistic person might object to such practices even in the presence of definitive evidence that this is a sign of psychopathy, seeing how another poster already speculated on making this list public so you could be kept unemployed and ostracized based on it.
Figuring out who is a psychopath would probably have usefulness outside of just finding criminals. Probably don't want to hire a psychopath or marry one.
Just what we needed: yet more ways to be judged and ostracized through no fault of your own.
Some people need to be locked up for life. This doesn't need to be terrible, you can make such a stay very humane, just not optional. I talk about pedo's for a reason. Some WANT exactly this, to be taken away from the normal world where they are afraid to give into temptation and be allowed to live in peace? Why not? Arrange an island somewhere and create a gated community that locks from the outside. The not-yet dangerous pedo can live in peace and safety and so can the rest of society.
What is it with the word "pedo" having such power? I mean, even the Ku Klux Klan doesn't dare suggest locking all blacks up pre-emptively because they're statistically more likely to commit crimes than whites, but as soon as you replace "black" with "pedo" you can post this sociopathic drivel and get modded up for it.
But you CAN'T! Because the bleeding hearts cannot accept that all people cannot be molded into the same one size fits all shape and the right refuses to pay for it.
The nerve, to require someone to actually have done something to be locked up. Clearly, it would be better to judge people based on what the magic 8-ball says.
So in your example, that river will now affect several communities, your community may vote for the right to dump sewage in it, but the others will vote against it.
At which point we're right back to where we started: a central government. Which will of course decide that every decision concerns everyone else - and is entirely right because, like I already said, it's just a matter of degree - and thus can't be decided on purely local level. And of course it'll need some way of actually stopping you from dumping sewage, which will cost money, which gets us to taxes and tax collection.
See, the thing is, modern nation-states didn't just happen, they evolved. Nothing you have said would stop them from re-evolving out of necessity.
It's the bare minimum of governance based on equal decision making power by all limited ONLY to the barest required need to prevent a tragedy of the commons scenario.
And who will decide what the "barest required" will be? Because the opinions will vary from "none" to "totalitarian dictatorship".
I shouldn't need to explain this, 5 minutes on google will tell you all the details.
Statements like that don't exactly reassure me that you have given your ideas of total social reorganization quite the level of consideration they require.
Again - do you really think thousands of philosophers over centuries didn't think of such an obvious thing ?
Appeals to authority are quite ironic when arguing for anarchism. But to answer your question: of course they have. Take your own advice and spend 5 minutes with Google.
That is - no nation states, you'd vote only on issues in your own small community, and the decisions taken would affect only that community.
Right, so if we decide to dump raw sewage into a river it won't affect anyone downstream? And when they decide to force us to stop, it won't affect us?
Everything affects everyone, the only question is the degree of impact. And this is only getting worse, because running an ever-more technical society requires ever larger amount of skills, which require more people to hold them. A small(ish) community might have been able to be self-sufficient in the Dark Ages, but even nation-states struggle with that today - and that means your community's decisions affect a lot of people, who will take interest in them, one way or another.
What anarchist philosophies teach is that everybody has a RIGHT to an equal say on all decisions that affect them, not that they have a DUTY to use that right.
With great power comes great responsibility. Thinking you can ignore every issue that won't directly affect you yet still wield any power when it comes to issues which do is a particularly stupid fantasy, even if we assume that you have some kind of way of telling them apart without investigating all of them (because, as the parent said, that's a full-time job). Your vote will be drowned out by the people who band together for the purposes of wielding power (political parties, whether they're official or informal), and meanwhile you're bombarded with propaganda and misinformation just like the current voters are.
Anarchism would require human nature to change to be the least bit viable, which is very unlikely, but to claim it would work when people continue being self-centered little shits is outright delusional - the particular delusion here being that your "little community" is completely independent from the rest of the world, and everyone within it from each other.
Another quip I have (about the story since I dn RTFA ) is that apparently the story's poster thinks that joining individuals into a live feedback net with each other will somehow erase individuality.
Depends. Does the bandwidth of these feedback loops equal or exceed the bandwidth between different parts of your brain? If yes, then they will have a greater effect on your behaviour than your own internal processes, at which point it would be hard to argue that you're an individual anymore. Compare this to how the cells in your own body form a single individual rather than just mass of cells because communication results in a particular level of synchronized cooperation being exceeded.
Not that this has anything to do with the article, which is typical fear-mongering: Anonymous forms an army! They'll smirk to our American officers! Hivemind! Singularity! Loss of individuality! They'll accidentally all of us!
The only real question here is whether this is the Atlantic's or Mr. Jacob's attempt to cash into a brewing moral panic, or a paid propaganda piece.
So if I have a bunch of floats, those have to be converted to ASCII strings, and sent to the DB, which then converts them back to floats to be stored internally. Or, if I want to store some binary data in some of the records (along with other formatted data, including ints, strings, and floats), that binary data needs to be converted to base64 or some other ascii representation to be inputted into the DB, which then surely converts it right back to binary.
You can avoid the overhead of conversion using parametrized queries (PQexecParams), which also avoids SQL injection attacks. However, I suspect that for almost all use cases the cost of interprocess communication alone is going to dwarf the conversion.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't know that Alaska was self-sufficient. It isn't? Well, I guess you failed to outrun climate change, then.
And this, here, is why these debates are pointless: the choices are between returning to pre-industrial lifestyle, which means that most people die and the survivors live in misery, and building nuclear power, which is scary, so at the end of the day we continue spewing carbon dioxide while fantasizing about windmills or climate change not happening.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. I doubt Slashdot will fare better.
Anything and everything it can get away with. It's a corporation, it has no capability for conscience or empathy.
Sure, why not? That has worked perfectly fine wherever it has been tried, with the Nordic welfare countries being perhaps the most triumphant example. It turns out that in a reasonably healthy culture the slackers will ultimately consume little (lacking the ambition for truly epic leeching schemes) so those who use the opportunity of free education to reach for the stars more than make up for them.
Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. If your "/boot" is in a dedicated partition (as it should be) with a Grub2-supported filesystem (such as ext3), and Grub2 can thus read the kernel image into memory, why should it have any further requirements?
Seriously, why do you want to deal with advanced filesystems in the bootloader? What do you expect to gain from that, other than putting completely pointless limits to their complexity? Just accept that you'll need to sacrtifce about 100MB or so for a boot partition (about 0.01 percent of a typical 1 terabyte hard disk) and you don't need to worry about whether Grub knows about btrfs subvolumes or not.
Yeah, just a high-tech and potentially very important industry.
And once the money from the car runs out, they're right back on food stamps. Except that they now either lack a car, which makes it far less likely that they'll find a job, or drive an older car which gets worse mileage and higher maintenance costs.
Insisting that people exhaust all their resources before they are eligible for receiving help is understandable, but it's also stupid.
Why would you prefer to rely on yourself in a moment of weakness - such as injury or illness - rather than cashing in on the benefits of living in a society? Why pretend that you're alone when you're not?
Historically, the only way to get worker rights codified in LAW has been for workers to join together and give the politicians the choice between that and a communist revolution.
Also, I'm not sure exactly what laws you're referring to when you declare pooling of power to be illegal. Care to elaborate?
Why should Grub2 care about your (/), as long as your (/boot) is readable?
It's indeed eerie. You'd almost think they were trying to model the same world.
No, they aren't. Corporations are legal constructs made of legal fiction. They may or may not have legal relationships - such as ownership or employment - to people, but they are not made of people.
And nobody's suggested taking their rights away. But tell me: if I draw a cartoon, do the characters in that cartoon have legal rights? Do I get in trouble if I draw a piano falling on them? No? Then why should any other fictitious construct - such as a corporation - have them?
By your logic, Pythagora's Theorem is a person.
So how do you propose throwing a corporation behind bars? The worst you can do to a corporation is give it a (usually ridiculously small) fine, and even then we get a chorus of people bitterly explaining how it'll simply pass it on to the customers (not that that's relevant for a patent troll or other nonproductive parasites).
A fictitious entity cannot be held responsible for anything because it does not exist, thus it shouldn't have rights either.
As opposed to what? Apps that don't make any demands on what API calls and libraries are available or what they do?
Truly, it's horrible to have just one update daemon, rather than one per application.
Actually, it seems to have succeeded just fine, judging by the continued existence and development of several desktop Linux distributions.
It's not different at all.
With everything else from the 80's returning, He-Man must be somewhere in the queue. Then perhaps we could have rule 34 combining the two. Not that that's relevant to my interests. At all.
No no no, you misunderstand. The whole idea of a "living standard" is that you have no way to refer to revisions b, ba or bb, but rather just have to hope that the browser will guess the intended meaning of your markup correctly. Which it probably won't, being roughly as intelligent as a particularly retarded earthworm. But I guess failure is part of being alive.
I just can't help but remember back when we also had a "living standard", meaning that nobody really knew how a particular document should or would be interpreted, and how it took years to hammer into people's heads the importance of including the HTML version information in their pages. Perhaps it's been long enough for the lessons of yesterday to be forgotten and in need of being re-learnt. Except that this time we have a far more complex mesh of HTML, CSS and Javascript to deal with, so this should be a popcorn-worthy farce.
Fun fact: modern graphics cards don't support pre-emptive multitasking. This is why Bitcoin miners have a setting which controls how long the app holds the card before yielding. Set it too high and your desktop basically hangs. Now imagine every web "designer" out there being able to do the same thing.
Also... why would web apps need 3D? Very few desktop apps have any use for 3D. Almost all applications deal with things that simply don't map to spatial relationships at all, much less to 3D space specifically. Add the increased resource consumption per page (which makes it harder to do heavy multi-tab browsing) and harder navigation (because 45 degree field of view to 3D space is simply inferior to a flat page that scrolls down in almost all situations), and I for one hope that 3D stays out of HTML for years to come.
But, even in the case that someone could come up with a compelling case for 3D, why would the web pages need direct access to the underlaying API when even game developers use middleware engines nowadays?
Since we allow private companies to grow without limit, this is not necessarily true. "With great power comes great responsibility", and frankly, it's about time we stop pretending that the word "private" excuses you from it.
A normal (non-narcissistic) person also demands pretty extraordinary proof before letting people be put on FBI databases because they used a period in a Twitter post. In fact, a non-narcissistic person might object to such practices even in the presence of definitive evidence that this is a sign of psychopathy, seeing how another poster already speculated on making this list public so you could be kept unemployed and ostracized based on it.
Just what we needed: yet more ways to be judged and ostracized through no fault of your own.
But Melkor sought to improve it and add themes of his own making, and thus the cacophonous abomination known as C++ was born.
I knew it!
What is it with the word "pedo" having such power? I mean, even the Ku Klux Klan doesn't dare suggest locking all blacks up pre-emptively because they're statistically more likely to commit crimes than whites, but as soon as you replace "black" with "pedo" you can post this sociopathic drivel and get modded up for it.
The nerve, to require someone to actually have done something to be locked up. Clearly, it would be better to judge people based on what the magic 8-ball says.
At which point we're right back to where we started: a central government. Which will of course decide that every decision concerns everyone else - and is entirely right because, like I already said, it's just a matter of degree - and thus can't be decided on purely local level. And of course it'll need some way of actually stopping you from dumping sewage, which will cost money, which gets us to taxes and tax collection.
See, the thing is, modern nation-states didn't just happen, they evolved. Nothing you have said would stop them from re-evolving out of necessity.
And who will decide what the "barest required" will be? Because the opinions will vary from "none" to "totalitarian dictatorship".
Statements like that don't exactly reassure me that you have given your ideas of total social reorganization quite the level of consideration they require.
Appeals to authority are quite ironic when arguing for anarchism. But to answer your question: of course they have. Take your own advice and spend 5 minutes with Google.
Right, so if we decide to dump raw sewage into a river it won't affect anyone downstream? And when they decide to force us to stop, it won't affect us?
Everything affects everyone, the only question is the degree of impact. And this is only getting worse, because running an ever-more technical society requires ever larger amount of skills, which require more people to hold them. A small(ish) community might have been able to be self-sufficient in the Dark Ages, but even nation-states struggle with that today - and that means your community's decisions affect a lot of people, who will take interest in them, one way or another.
With great power comes great responsibility. Thinking you can ignore every issue that won't directly affect you yet still wield any power when it comes to issues which do is a particularly stupid fantasy, even if we assume that you have some kind of way of telling them apart without investigating all of them (because, as the parent said, that's a full-time job). Your vote will be drowned out by the people who band together for the purposes of wielding power (political parties, whether they're official or informal), and meanwhile you're bombarded with propaganda and misinformation just like the current voters are.
Anarchism would require human nature to change to be the least bit viable, which is very unlikely, but to claim it would work when people continue being self-centered little shits is outright delusional - the particular delusion here being that your "little community" is completely independent from the rest of the world, and everyone within it from each other.
Depends. Does the bandwidth of these feedback loops equal or exceed the bandwidth between different parts of your brain? If yes, then they will have a greater effect on your behaviour than your own internal processes, at which point it would be hard to argue that you're an individual anymore. Compare this to how the cells in your own body form a single individual rather than just mass of cells because communication results in a particular level of synchronized cooperation being exceeded.
Not that this has anything to do with the article, which is typical fear-mongering: Anonymous forms an army! They'll smirk to our American officers! Hivemind! Singularity! Loss of individuality! They'll accidentally all of us!
The only real question here is whether this is the Atlantic's or Mr. Jacob's attempt to cash into a brewing moral panic, or a paid propaganda piece.
You can avoid the overhead of conversion using parametrized queries (PQexecParams), which also avoids SQL injection attacks. However, I suspect that for almost all use cases the cost of interprocess communication alone is going to dwarf the conversion.
You could simply do like this Greasemonkey script and attach new thumbnails at the bottom of the page when the user scrolls down.
You mean like deciding what the marketing materials, such as company website and its photo gallery, should look and feel like?
Having seen the way humans drive, I don't.