And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.
Whereas the citizens aspiring for freedom will utilize the guillotine.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will simply use various forms of encryption and steganoragphy and escape your notion. We already are, as it happens.
Basically, fuck you. Fuck your master. Fuck anyone who claims control over anything for any reason. I'm already a part of the global community, and will only care about my own country (Finland) if it continues to prove worth it. Or maybe I'll do the really radical thing and demand it'll stay worth it...
I don't trust any politician. So maybe he stopped this one bill but that doesn't mean he's not in support of some other kind of crazy.
True, it doesn't. However, it does mean that he is in opposition to at least a single kind of crazy, which is more than you can say about most congrescritters. So vote for him; a single good quality is better than none, right?
Please name a single country without an elected legislature where the citizens have greater rights than Americans.
According to Press Freedom Index 2010, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, Estonia, Ireland, Denmark, Japan, Lithuania, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Germany, Australia and United Kingdom. You're at the 20th rank. Shame on you, USA, especially considering your 1st amendment. And good for you, Finland, for as a citizen I accept nothing less than topping the chart. Which, of course, is why you topped the chart, which is a direct challenge for the rest of you for the next year.
Which is pretty impressive, considering how Finland has it's own version of the Great Firewall of China. Shame on you, United States, you are at the 20th state, below even Germany. On the other hand, all the Nordic countries besides Denmark vie for number one position.
The lack of enforceability and teeth is indeed a problem, perhaps THE problem, unless you define a violation as treason. I'm not sure that's a bad solution, actually.
It is, for two reasons:
1) It won't solve the problem. Who's going to prosecute those who violate the Constitution - you?
2) It makes the definition of "treason" somewhat arbitrary. We've already seen that Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is; do you really want treason to be whatever the Supreme Court says it is?
I'm of the opinion that "treason" should be completely removed as an offence. You can only betray that which you owe loyalty to, and it's hard to argue that you owe loyalty to people living on the other side of the continent. Remove "treason" from law, and handle spying and such through ordinary law, and things get a lot simpler and fairer.
Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.
When the government makes regulation that censors the Internet, that's bad. When the government makes regulation that keeps corporations from censoring the Internet, that's good. Censorship is evil, freedom is good. It's that simple.
A car analogy: If the government made a law that prevented you from driving to California, that would be very bad. If a toll road operator forced you to tell your destination and charged extra if it was California, and the government would bitchslap them for that, it would be very good.
Good is good, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone, and evil is evil, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone. This is an entirely consistent position.
When Garry played Deep Blue, it was understood that no parameters of the machine would be changed during game play. That turned out not to be the case, as the IBM programmers were tweaking things behind the scenes.
While it would certainly be more impressive for Deep Blue to beat Gasparov unaided, it's still pretty impressive to beat him even with the aid of a programmer, unless that programmer happens to be a chess champion himself:).
Had Garry known this, he might have played differently, not expecting the machine to make new/different moves than it had previously made, etc.
What do you meant by "new" moves? The same piece is unlikely to be in the same spot many times in a single match, so the majority of moves are inevitably going to be "new" in a given match.
If people stole and presumably watch the movie Far Cry, *they* should be suing the studio for emotional distress or something.
Look, if you stab yourself with a meat cleaver, it's not the fault of whoever manufactured it. Or maybe it is, in the USA, since apparently spilling hot coffee on yourself is the fault of whoever brewed it...
*NO ONE* should be subjected to a Uwe Boll film.
Maybe you should replace the death penalty with having to watch Uwe Bolls filmography?
Civil, not criminal. Preponderance of evidence - IOW, "more likely than not" - is the standard.
The question is: why? They are accusing you of breaking the law. They are demanding a huge punishment: debt slavery for the rest of your life. Why is this treated similar to a contract dispute? Is there any reason to make this a "civil law" case besides the copyright lobby being able to blackmail you more efficiently?
Oh well. I guess the "rule of law" is a quaint, antiquated notion. I kinda wish they stopped pretending and just admitted that might makes right in a court of law.
Couldn't it just be that we do not really have direct access to the raw computational capacity of the brain?
Probably. You can scan a crowd because you have a hardware-level implementation for that; you can't multiply efficiently because that has to go through multiple levels of emulation, at least one of which has a severe lack of reliable memory.
We shouldn't forget that abstract thought is actually a very new evolutionary hack; we've only had a real culture for a 10,000 years or so. Before that, it was cave paintings for a 100,000 years. You can't expect a very experimental feature to be thoroughly optimized, yet.
Please reply to what the GP actually posted. Their bible quote points out that eventually *everyone* will have to have the "mark" to do transactions. There eventually will be no opting out. You're better off not replying if you aren't going to read what the person whote that you are replying directly to.
Let's assume Bible to be inerrant. Let's also assume that this particular quote was meant as a prediction of future events thousands of years away; there's a pretty strong argument that the whole Book of Revelation was written as a thinly-disguised "fuck you" to the Roman Empire, who had a habit of putting their rulers portraits on their money (so you'd have to take the "image of the beast" into your hand to conduct transactions) and requiring worship of said rulers, and had a ruler (Nero) who had just died but was rumored to be alive and about to return, was commonly considered a beast, and who's name can be read as "666" by a common numerological method of the time, but let's ignore all that.
Even with these assumptions, your argument is illogical. There is no reason to assume that RFID tags really are the fulfilment of a particular prophecy, just because they could be. You certainly can't assume that they are, then use that to "disprove" any counterarguments, for that is begging the question. The GP pointed out that RFID tags seem unlikely to go the way the Mark of the Beast is supposed to; that's evidence that RFID tags are not, in fact, Mark of the Beast, not that they are MotB and a miracle will enforce all the conditionals.
This is why religious arguments usually get modded down: even if you assume that said religion is correct, the arguments themselves tend to be one logical fallacy on top of another, and often completely incoherent.
Spoken like a gmail/yahoo/hotmail web user. Sorry, I actually use a real email client, and send/receive emails to and from multiple email accounts all from my one email client.
I use Thunderbird with a gmail account over SSL, and it works just fine.
See there is this thing called an email standard, and that standard specifies port 25 is used for that purpose.
The SMTP standard defines that for use of servers. E-mail clients usually use POP or IMAP protocols, which use ports 110 and 143 respectively. So no, you don't need to have port 25 open to use a real e-mail client, except for rather bizarre values of "clear".
Maybe a better standard needs to be made, but until then I want my ISP to leave port 25 alone. If they catch me sending spam from it, feel free to send me an letter and email and block the port temporarily.
How about blocking port 25 by default, and opening it on request? That would stop spambots, yet allow anyone who wants to run a mail server of their own.
While I largely agree, I am of the opinion that large mails are a bad idea.
I have often used e-mail to send photographs to people. No, I don't want to set up an "online photo-album" or other such thing, I just want a mail-equivalent for the Internet. Given this requirement, e-mail is the best system available.
That said, email is no longer a communication protocol, but an idea/data sharing platform.
So it's a way of hiding something in time, without anyone really knowing anything is being hidden.
Based on the description, what it is is the equivalent of taking a picture of the safe, putting that in front of the camera, looting the safe and finally removing the picture.
If there were shady government-funded agencies at work here, couldn't they have come up with something that left no shadow of doubt as to guilt to ensure a conviction, an acquaintance stabbed and a bloody knife found in his car, or indecent images planted on his computer or something?
No, because the very fact that you can imagine said shady agencies doing this means there's always a shadow of doubt one did. That's why the bar is "reasonable doubt", not "any doubt".
In any case, for purposes of character assasination, rape charges work much better than murder ones. The shadowy organizations simply want the words "Julian Assange" and "rape" to be repeated together often enough that the public starts associating them. Whether or not a court convicts him is irrelevant; it's sufficient that the court of public opinion does.
Of course, all this does is increase the credibility of Wikileaks, since obviously someone powerful is scared of what they have to say.
So tell me why again it should be come law of the land?
It's your corporate overlords who want to inflict this on the rest of the world. Why shouldn't you suffer from your own bullshit? Maybe that'll teach you to reign those bulls in, and not let them crap all over the world.
Did it? Because this seems more like a gimmick to me. How many people are ever going to start a compile job - much less with the "-j64"-swithc - from the command line?
Now, don't get me wrong, group scheduling is certainly a very good thing. However, it will only deliver its real promise once it's the UI doing both grouping and scheduling - after all, how is the kernel supposed to know that a particular app is playing a video otherwise? For that matter, how about grouping all the threads in a single process by default?
The real killer would be group scheduling and subgroup scheduling fixed with an application-level group scheduling - that is, I might create a group and assign a scheduler of my choice (userspace code, so I could even code it myself) to it.
Oh well. I'm sure the UI to assign these things will get there eventually. Group scheduling is a good thing, but it really needs to be exposed to the user. Stop underestimating him, and give him some tools to control his machine!
But don't expect to be able to buy a support contract unless you're using the official kernel.
For what, and from whom? For the record, I would be happy to support any GPL-(or compatible)-licensed thing over any GPL-(or compatible)-licensed (Linux, or Hurd, or whatever) kernel version, given sufficient price...
That's the real reason I hate using proprietary software: too much grief. With FOSS stuff I can always force it do what I want, it's just a matter of how much grief it'll take; but with proprietary stuff, it'll take running a debugger and hex editing (I'm a "read the source and use logical deduction" -kind of guy, I never learned how to use a debugger, even when I was making my own Nethack variant and reverse-engineering C while I did).
It was a cluster of ASIC chips, and that doesn't scale well to incremental performance upgrades the way a new, faster x86 chip every six months does. Who's going to design a whole new set of ASICs every six months? Nobody in their right mind.
Nah. What killed Amiga was simply that Commodore couldn't compete with the PC clones. You can't compete against a commodity market with multiple vendords with specialized hardware. You just plain can't.
To this day there's a Finnish gaming magazine that claims that Commodore 64 was killed by piracy. That's blatant lies: Commodore 64 died and PC succeeded because the PC was designed to evolve. IBM PC was the first personal computer platform that was designed to be seriously extended, and that translated to evolving in every front, and that translates to modern computers. Flexibility is what allowed humans to take over this world; Commodore failed to learn the lesson, but IBM did. That's why modern 4-core 64-bit machines are called "PC-compatibles" rather than "C64-compatibles", never mind that both were equally pathetic at the beginning.
and for some reason novice programmers often think the way to make the program fast is to do an incremental update after every event
Read the Java Swing docs. They pretty much imply that the ImageObserver interface gets called every time there's been an update (so you can draw the updated image), but it's not (and that's okay, since Java's inbuilt image scaling algorithms suck - it can be literally 10 times faster to rewrite the image to an RBG raster and do band-by-band rescale than to use them - I timed). Speaking of Swing, if you do plenty of upgrades in a single JComponents children, you can get a huge speed increase by simply calling "update" on that component.
You can hardly fault "novice programmers" for believing the official doc, but WTF Java?
Seriously, this is a major point to understand: When it comes to the kernel, in a fight between your knowledge and Linus', Linus wins.
You'd think so, but:
"Initially a Phoronix reader tipped us off this morning of this latest patch. "Please check this out, my desktop will never be the same again, it makes a *lot* of difference for desktop usage (all things smooth, scrolling etc.)...It feels as good as Con Kolivas's patches.""
Emphasis mine. Fuck Linus. All he cares is how well it works in 1024-core machines. It's a miracle if anything that's useful at desktop actually gets approved, so I suspect this patch will have some flaw found to stop such abomination from happening. And a flaw, of course, means that it won't scale to 4096-core machines, or helps desktop machines. Either will do.
Slashdot Mirror
Whereas the citizens aspiring for freedom will utilize the guillotine.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will simply use various forms of encryption and steganoragphy and escape your notion. We already are, as it happens.
Basically, fuck you. Fuck your master. Fuck anyone who claims control over anything for any reason. I'm already a part of the global community, and will only care about my own country (Finland) if it continues to prove worth it. Or maybe I'll do the really radical thing and demand it'll stay worth it...
True, it doesn't. However, it does mean that he is in opposition to at least a single kind of crazy, which is more than you can say about most congrescritters. So vote for him; a single good quality is better than none, right?
According to Press Freedom Index 2010, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, Estonia, Ireland, Denmark, Japan, Lithuania, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Germany, Australia and United Kingdom. You're at the 20th rank. Shame on you, USA, especially considering your 1st amendment. And good for you, Finland, for as a citizen I accept nothing less than topping the chart. Which, of course, is why you topped the chart, which is a direct challenge for the rest of you for the next year.
Which is pretty impressive, considering how Finland has it's own version of the Great Firewall of China. Shame on you, United States, you are at the 20th state, below even Germany. On the other hand, all the Nordic countries besides Denmark vie for number one position.
It is, for two reasons:
1) It won't solve the problem. Who's going to prosecute those who violate the Constitution - you?
2) It makes the definition of "treason" somewhat arbitrary. We've already seen that Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is; do you really want treason to be whatever the Supreme Court says it is?
I'm of the opinion that "treason" should be completely removed as an offence. You can only betray that which you owe loyalty to, and it's hard to argue that you owe loyalty to people living on the other side of the continent. Remove "treason" from law, and handle spying and such through ordinary law, and things get a lot simpler and fairer.
When the government makes regulation that censors the Internet, that's bad. When the government makes regulation that keeps corporations from censoring the Internet, that's good. Censorship is evil, freedom is good. It's that simple.
A car analogy: If the government made a law that prevented you from driving to California, that would be very bad. If a toll road operator forced you to tell your destination and charged extra if it was California, and the government would bitchslap them for that, it would be very good.
Good is good, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone, and evil is evil, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone. This is an entirely consistent position.
While it would certainly be more impressive for Deep Blue to beat Gasparov unaided, it's still pretty impressive to beat him even with the aid of a programmer, unless that programmer happens to be a chess champion himself :).
What do you meant by "new" moves? The same piece is unlikely to be in the same spot many times in a single match, so the majority of moves are inevitably going to be "new" in a given match.
Did you perhaps mean "strategies"?
Look, if you stab yourself with a meat cleaver, it's not the fault of whoever manufactured it. Or maybe it is, in the USA, since apparently spilling hot coffee on yourself is the fault of whoever brewed it...
Maybe you should replace the death penalty with having to watch Uwe Bolls filmography?
The question is: why? They are accusing you of breaking the law. They are demanding a huge punishment: debt slavery for the rest of your life. Why is this treated similar to a contract dispute? Is there any reason to make this a "civil law" case besides the copyright lobby being able to blackmail you more efficiently?
Oh well. I guess the "rule of law" is a quaint, antiquated notion. I kinda wish they stopped pretending and just admitted that might makes right in a court of law.
Probably. You can scan a crowd because you have a hardware-level implementation for that; you can't multiply efficiently because that has to go through multiple levels of emulation, at least one of which has a severe lack of reliable memory.
We shouldn't forget that abstract thought is actually a very new evolutionary hack; we've only had a real culture for a 10,000 years or so. Before that, it was cave paintings for a 100,000 years. You can't expect a very experimental feature to be thoroughly optimized, yet.
Let's assume Bible to be inerrant. Let's also assume that this particular quote was meant as a prediction of future events thousands of years away; there's a pretty strong argument that the whole Book of Revelation was written as a thinly-disguised "fuck you" to the Roman Empire, who had a habit of putting their rulers portraits on their money (so you'd have to take the "image of the beast" into your hand to conduct transactions) and requiring worship of said rulers, and had a ruler (Nero) who had just died but was rumored to be alive and about to return, was commonly considered a beast, and who's name can be read as "666" by a common numerological method of the time, but let's ignore all that.
Even with these assumptions, your argument is illogical. There is no reason to assume that RFID tags really are the fulfilment of a particular prophecy, just because they could be. You certainly can't assume that they are, then use that to "disprove" any counterarguments, for that is begging the question. The GP pointed out that RFID tags seem unlikely to go the way the Mark of the Beast is supposed to; that's evidence that RFID tags are not, in fact, Mark of the Beast, not that they are MotB and a miracle will enforce all the conditionals.
This is why religious arguments usually get modded down: even if you assume that said religion is correct, the arguments themselves tend to be one logical fallacy on top of another, and often completely incoherent.
I use Thunderbird with a gmail account over SSL, and it works just fine.
The SMTP standard defines that for use of servers. E-mail clients usually use POP or IMAP protocols, which use ports 110 and 143 respectively. So no, you don't need to have port 25 open to use a real e-mail client, except for rather bizarre values of "clear".
How about blocking port 25 by default, and opening it on request? That would stop spambots, yet allow anyone who wants to run a mail server of their own.
I have often used e-mail to send photographs to people. No, I don't want to set up an "online photo-album" or other such thing, I just want a mail-equivalent for the Internet. Given this requirement, e-mail is the best system available.
Care to explain the difference?
Well... Nobody's ever seen a chicken cross the road to prevent the apocalypse. I think that's evidence enough.
Based on the description, what it is is the equivalent of taking a picture of the safe, putting that in front of the camera, looting the safe and finally removing the picture.
No, because the very fact that you can imagine said shady agencies doing this means there's always a shadow of doubt one did. That's why the bar is "reasonable doubt", not "any doubt".
In any case, for purposes of character assasination, rape charges work much better than murder ones. The shadowy organizations simply want the words "Julian Assange" and "rape" to be repeated together often enough that the public starts associating them. Whether or not a court convicts him is irrelevant; it's sufficient that the court of public opinion does.
Of course, all this does is increase the credibility of Wikileaks, since obviously someone powerful is scared of what they have to say.
How many people do you have logged in on your desktop system at once?
Anyway, maybe autogrouping by the program being run might work? All compiler instances in a single group, all Firefox instances in another, etc.
So, you're saying that a dictatorship is the form of government least likely to abuse power, because it concentrates it all on a single person?
Government exists to allow cooperation of a group of people large enough that everyone doesn't know everyone else. That's all.
Well DUH!
It's your corporate overlords who want to inflict this on the rest of the world. Why shouldn't you suffer from your own bullshit? Maybe that'll teach you to reign those bulls in, and not let them crap all over the world.
Did it? Because this seems more like a gimmick to me. How many people are ever going to start a compile job - much less with the "-j64"-swithc - from the command line?
Now, don't get me wrong, group scheduling is certainly a very good thing. However, it will only deliver its real promise once it's the UI doing both grouping and scheduling - after all, how is the kernel supposed to know that a particular app is playing a video otherwise? For that matter, how about grouping all the threads in a single process by default?
The real killer would be group scheduling and subgroup scheduling fixed with an application-level group scheduling - that is, I might create a group and assign a scheduler of my choice (userspace code, so I could even code it myself) to it.
Oh well. I'm sure the UI to assign these things will get there eventually. Group scheduling is a good thing, but it really needs to be exposed to the user. Stop underestimating him, and give him some tools to control his machine!
For what, and from whom? For the record, I would be happy to support any GPL-(or compatible)-licensed thing over any GPL-(or compatible)-licensed (Linux, or Hurd, or whatever) kernel version, given sufficient price...
That's the real reason I hate using proprietary software: too much grief. With FOSS stuff I can always force it do what I want, it's just a matter of how much grief it'll take; but with proprietary stuff, it'll take running a debugger and hex editing (I'm a "read the source and use logical deduction" -kind of guy, I never learned how to use a debugger, even when I was making my own Nethack variant and reverse-engineering C while I did).
Nah. What killed Amiga was simply that Commodore couldn't compete with the PC clones. You can't compete against a commodity market with multiple vendords with specialized hardware. You just plain can't.
To this day there's a Finnish gaming magazine that claims that Commodore 64 was killed by piracy. That's blatant lies: Commodore 64 died and PC succeeded because the PC was designed to evolve. IBM PC was the first personal computer platform that was designed to be seriously extended, and that translated to evolving in every front, and that translates to modern computers. Flexibility is what allowed humans to take over this world; Commodore failed to learn the lesson, but IBM did. That's why modern 4-core 64-bit machines are called "PC-compatibles" rather than "C64-compatibles", never mind that both were equally pathetic at the beginning.
Read the Java Swing docs. They pretty much imply that the ImageObserver interface gets called every time there's been an update (so you can draw the updated image), but it's not (and that's okay, since Java's inbuilt image scaling algorithms suck - it can be literally 10 times faster to rewrite the image to an RBG raster and do band-by-band rescale than to use them - I timed). Speaking of Swing, if you do plenty of upgrades in a single JComponents children, you can get a huge speed increase by simply calling "update" on that component.
You can hardly fault "novice programmers" for believing the official doc, but WTF Java?
You'd think so, but:
"Initially a Phoronix reader tipped us off this morning of this latest patch. "Please check this out, my desktop will never be the same again, it makes a *lot* of difference for desktop usage (all things smooth, scrolling etc.)...It feels as good as Con Kolivas's patches.""
Emphasis mine. Fuck Linus. All he cares is how well it works in 1024-core machines. It's a miracle if anything that's useful at desktop actually gets approved, so I suspect this patch will have some flaw found to stop such abomination from happening. And a flaw, of course, means that it won't scale to 4096-core machines, or helps desktop machines. Either will do.
Don't worry, C++ isn't going anywhere.