64 bit isn't too far off. As a developer you'd be better off getting a copy soon and work on merging your projects over to work on 64 bit now, rather than wait for crunch time.
Every 32-bit program I've tried to run on 64-bit Win7 have worked perfectly. Some have even benefited, since a 32-bit program in 64-bit Windows can use the entire 4GB virtual memory space for itself, assuming that the correct executive headers are set. And of course having more physical memory makes multitasking easier and allows for more disk cache.
Re:How Quickly They Forget
on
The End of Free
·
· Score: 2, Funny
$50 for cellular internet; capped at a mere 5-10 gigabytes
$15-20 for DSL with no cap (or cable with 250GB cap)
$7 for dialup with no cap
$0 for over-the-air television (6000 gigabytes per channel)
Can you use these over-the-air television channels to surf the Web or download files? No? Then your comparison is meaningless.
Besides, nothing's more pathetic than a libertarian whining that a free public service he enjoys is about to be cut off.
In Snowcrash, after hyperinflation the federal govermnet had to post threatening signs in the restrooms about how defacing currency is illegal, specifically because the toilet paper cost more per square foot than the bills.
That doesn't make sense. Not only would it help fight inflation by removing currency from circulation, but the paper bills are made of is far higher quality than toilet paper; even if you couldn't remove the color from it, you could simply dye it to a uniform color and reuse.
But then again, I suppose cyberpunk is more about a "dirty and gritty" than believable future.
Coding style like this makes me cringe, particularly the thing about no braces for single-line conditionals -- it makes it far too easy to make mistakes because you indent code and forget that indentation doesn't mean it's part of the conditional (unless you are using python, of course).
That's why you use automatic grammar-parsing indentation, allowing you to see with a glance the block structure of the code.
Oh yeah, and you capitalist pigs don't have your own paid citizens that break havocs in our internet ? So tell me, what is this 4chan thing ? Why would people behave in such a way if they were not paid ? heh ?
4chan is an online mental asylum specializing in various sexual perversions. The inmates behave the way they do because they are mental patients, and the wardens - called moderators - imitate them in an attempt to create contact with them to allow the treatment to proceed. There have been numerous breakouts, sometimes called "raids", which is why it's still experimental.
There are other "chans" around, acting as control groups; the most notable perhaps being 7chan, which holds those patients judged too dangerous to be held at 4chan. This is why 7chan supports HTTPS protocol, to keep the pages and images of its deranged inhabitants from escaping en route and polluting the rest of the Internet.
You might wish to suggest to your government that they, too, start their version of this asylum. After all, your ideal of sanity is mindless conformity, and chans are quite good at inducing just that - just look at Project Chanology, an activity partaken by the inmates: removing their very faces should make any dictatorship swell with a warm and fuzzy feeling.
There are many pathways to financial success, but they all involve paying more attention to the contents of your own bank account and less attention to the contents of other peoples' bank accounts.
And there are many pathways to changing the system so that it doesn't screw everyone who isn't financially succesful, but they all involve paying attention to people's bank accounts to figure out who's doing the screwing.
I am preferably interested to hear what people in China feel about these issues more than people in the West demanding on behalf of people in China.
With the censorship in place in China, how are they going to tell you? Or form an informed opinion, for that matter? How do they know you aren't a government agent weeding out dissidents? How do you know you're not talking to a government agent?
I don't think you really understand what it means to live under censorship. It is not just an "issue", it means that your information sources - and thus your very thoughts - are dominated by whoever's in charge.
Asking people who live under censorship is about the same as asking a corpse if it minds being dead, often quite literally.
Interesting link, but that article is more communist than smart. If I work my whole life to gather stuff for my family and am successful at it, what gives "Us, The People" the right to take those away when I die?
My point exactly. Any attempt to counteract wealth concentration is by necessity taking stuff away from the haves, and not doing so means that the have-nots are screwed. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
This proposal, as implemented, would only leave boredom as a motivator to do anything. Profit would certainly not be involved.
Any proposal that grants people freedom when there's artificial intelligence results in that. And that's just fine with me. If robots can do all the work needed to run society, why shouldn't I be free to spend my time as I want? Why should I or anyone else be a wage-slave when that's not necessary for either survival, advancement or prosperity of society or any of its members?
Capitalism isn't really compatible with general-purpose intelligent robots, and employer-employee relationships certainly aren't. Communism, ironically enough, is: own the robots communally and let anyone request things from them, within the limits of their share of the resources. Now, personally, I don't think that we will switch to such a system: we've aren't running our economy rationally or for the benefit of common people as is, so why would that change? However, things can't continue as they are, much less continue getting worse, without something giving eventually. And, sooner or later, technology will advance to the point that an individual can be economically self-sufficient, so it's not like profit motive will last forever anyway.
Maybe we could rethink society so we don't have to do things machines could, and still not starve.
Yes, but such suggestions would mean that the rich could no longer lord it over the poor, and thus are a form of communism, and thus are evil. Why do you hate freedom so much?
Going by apathy and inherent degeneracy of of many people today... most people are robots in one way or another - robots of ideology, political robots, robots of all types in society. Human beings are just "robots" made of meat.
Which, while strictly speaking true of all imaginable beings, is also completely irrelevant for that very reason. The relevant question is: Can we build robots smart enough to take care of and monitor children?
That may sound insulting but consider how poor most human thinking is on the whole and how long we've taken to even have progress in the most basic tasks of getting along with one another.
Actually, it sounds like someone criticized or failed to convert to your pet ideology, or at least that's what these rants are usually caused by. Can't be libertarianism, since you'd use "sheep" rather than "robots" then, nor can it be a religion since then you'd emphasize how this shows "rebellion" rather than conformity...
Quite frankly human beings over-estimate their importance in the large scheme of things,
Okay, enlighten me: what is the large scheme of things, and what is my part in it?
If you can't answer those, you can't very well decide whether any idea I might have of my importance is over- or underestimated or just right.
Once you get deep into neurological science and biology of the nervous system you start to really develop a deep appreciation of how little human beings are in control of themselves and how automatic and "robotic", mindless and predictable a lot of their behavior really is.
I sincerely doubt that you have examined these deeply, for the simple reason that you seem to be advocating some strange form of dualism where your nervous system is somehow separate from you, and you are just a puppet to it.
To prove yourself wrong, simply drink a few pints of strong beer and notice how it affects you, rather than some entity distinct from you, thus proving that your nervous system isyou. Beer: the quick way to solve the mind-body problem and many other philosophical questions:).
Is that why the FDA produced a "food pyramid" which bases the diet on carbohydrates which we know and for centuries have known will cause heart disease and obesity in cases of overconsumption?
Everything kills you with overconsumption, even water.
That depends on the speed of movement in the image. The more things move between two frames, the harder it will be for your eyes to connect the two images together. This is made even worse when the whole image moves, since you aren't getting corrective feedback from your inner ear.
What I'm saying is that 30 fps seems smooth, but 60 fps makes it easier to keep track of what's happening.
Yeah except they aren't doing that. The FCC isn't listening to the majority of the people, and instead is listening to the siren call of the corporations (and $$$).
As people often point out here, the USA is not a direct democracy, it's a democratic republic. That means that FCC is fully within its rights - and indeed has a duty to - in ignoring the majority of the people if it thinks they are wrong. You have a remedy against this behaviour during the next elections.
I'd have to pay about $100 a month to use the channels that I've used for Free all my life.
Yes, and I'm not using them at all, and haven't for years. I'd be better served by selling them off and having the money used for something that benefits me. Apparently the FCC thinks that the latter is better than the former.
How is moving from free to a paywall an improvement?
It's not. The question is: is the money the companies pay for them enough to justify it?
"The People" would be better off to not lockup those channels into these megacorps, and instead allow it to continue to be used by local, community-based tv stations to provide Free streaming video content (6000 gigabytes per month per channel), as has been the case for the last ~70 years.
No, as you've repeatedly stated, you would be better off that way. And as I have stated, I would be better off selling them off as long as those companies pay even a single burnt wooden penny for them. As for what most benefits The People, that's for the FCC to figure out - that's why it exists.
Why is it that libertarians have such a hard time acknowledging that the interests of people other than themselves might also matter? Or am I mixing cause and effect here?
Why aren't government scientists treated with as much skepticism as corporate scientists?
Because a government has a vested interest in keeping you healthy, while a corporation has vested interest to say that whatever they produce is healthy, whether or not it is.
Both government and corporations are made of psychopaths, but a psychotic governor might still pay some attention to your wellbeing since he considers you his property, while a corporate psycho has no such reason. That's one of the reasons to oppose libertarian plutocracy.
That's the ultimate test: Did you ever buy anything you didn't need?
That's a meaningless question, since it doesn't qualify "need" with "for something". Every want can be viewed as a need ("I need designer clothes to be appreciated by my peers") and every need as a want ("I don't need to stay alive, I just want to").
So no, neither I nor anyone else has ever bought anything we didn't need; yet it's just as justified to claim that nothing you could ever buy is something you actually need.
Advertising is not just about buying a particular brand, it's about creating a consumer culture, and all of us participate in the consumer culture. Some of us just delude ourselves into thinking we don't.
Holy circular argument, Batman!
Everyone participates in consumer culture. Therefore those who think they don't are just deluding themselves, and are in reality participating in consumer culture. Therefore everyone participates in consumer culture.
I guarantee that you chose them because of advertising.
No, I chose them because of price.
You know which components to buy when you build a computer because of advertising.
No, I got a price list for components from a webshop, then went through that in ascending order, checking Wikipedia for information, until I had a cheapest sufficient part for my needs in every category.
I suppose you could consider a price list a form of advertising, if you really pushed the definition.
You know which cereal to buy because of advertising.
No, I go to the store, see which one is cheapest, and buy that.
What kind of moron buys food by brand?
Even if you buy the cheap store-brand of corn flakes, it's because the store-brand is piggy-backing off the effect that Kellogs' advertising had on you or you wouldn't even know to buy corn flakes.
Actually, I buy bread.
I bet you know the names of Apple's laptop computers.
No.
I bet you know the names of the individual programs in Adobe's Creative Suite.
No.
I bet you can tell me the names of car models made by the biggest car companies.
No.
So, how much did I won?
Even if you aren't directly influenced to run out and buy a product, you learn the names, you learn the qualities that made one brand better than another.
The thing is, I'm not thinking in terms of brands, except when one manufacturer manages to produce such a shoddy product I'll avoid them from then on. I think in the terms of price and properties, and filter advertising out as noise.
Eventually you will make a decision, and though you think you're making the decision based only upon your own independent thinking, the marketing plays a bigger role than you think.
I suppose it's always possible that astroturfers have planted false information in my sources. That's one more reason to hate them.
The fact that a company advertises makes their products less fit for your needs when you independently have determined that you have a need for that product?
No, the fact that a company advertises makes choosing its products carry an unfortunate side-effect of helping fund advertising.
That's pretty irrational.
Actually, it's perfectly rational to take into account the long-term effects of making a particular choice, such as giving money to a company that engages in behaviours you disagree with. In fact, not taking these things into account would make your behaviour irrational, since rationality means making the choices that give you the best chance of achieving your goals while avoiding bad things (technically speaking, to maximize expected utility).
Ah, that's a bit nmore reasonable. Of course, if it belongs to We The People, we need some entity to manage it.
The FCC has zero right to take-away OUR common property and lock it up behind a ~$100/month cellphone paywall.
Actually, the FCC has every right to do just that, being the very entity chartered by We The People to take care of Our common property.
The important thing here is that electromagnetic spectrum is not your private property, it's our common property; consequently, it's possible that some action concerning it - such as selling it to telecoms - might benefit most of its owners yet harm you. However, in such a case, not selling it would benefit you at the expense of most of its owners, which is hardly right.
But then again, your whining is consistent with your other comments.
Where I live, many government agencies such as Police and the Tax Department call from blocked numbers.
Government agencies can contact me in writing if they must. In fact I find it far more likely that an unkown number calling me and claiming to be the police is actually a fraudster.
Out of curiosity: why is a government agency going out of its way to make it hard for you to confirm their identity when they contact you?
Ignoring the obvious joke that you don't want to talk to these people anyway, the reality is you'll often get calls from numbers that aren't in your phonebook.
I don't want to talk to them, especially unprepared and wondering if I'm talking to a fraudster. I want a letter inviting me to either visit or call them or mail another letter, with sufficient time to think what I'm going to say.
And yes, I'll often get calls from such numbers; avoiding that is the whole point of this kind of block.
My income certainly would suffer if I adopted your suggestion, ever job I've ever got in the last ten years would have resulted from saying "Hello?" to a stranger.
If you work in a field where employees compete for employers, congratulations; but please understand that for most people it's the other way around, so strangers contacting us are far more likely trying to get than to give us money.
Making a mix tape (or CD) and giving it to a friend gratis, is still copyright infringement, but I believe it's only a civil matter at that point.
"Only" a civil matter? It seems to me that the punishments from civil matters seem far harsher than from actual crimes, not to mention you have to prove your innocence to avoid them.
Slashdot Mirror
Which are?...
Every 32-bit program I've tried to run on 64-bit Win7 have worked perfectly. Some have even benefited, since a 32-bit program in 64-bit Windows can use the entire 4GB virtual memory space for itself, assuming that the correct executive headers are set. And of course having more physical memory makes multitasking easier and allows for more disk cache.
Can you use these over-the-air television channels to surf the Web or download files? No? Then your comparison is meaningless.
Besides, nothing's more pathetic than a libertarian whining that a free public service he enjoys is about to be cut off.
That doesn't make sense. Not only would it help fight inflation by removing currency from circulation, but the paper bills are made of is far higher quality than toilet paper; even if you couldn't remove the color from it, you could simply dye it to a uniform color and reuse.
But then again, I suppose cyberpunk is more about a "dirty and gritty" than believable future.
That's why you use automatic grammar-parsing indentation, allowing you to see with a glance the block structure of the code.
It's a rather dark humor to realize that this is, indeed, what passes as "fine and balanced" in modern copyright law.
But most stars you see nowadays still burn. That's an improvement, right?
4chan is an online mental asylum specializing in various sexual perversions. The inmates behave the way they do because they are mental patients, and the wardens - called moderators - imitate them in an attempt to create contact with them to allow the treatment to proceed. There have been numerous breakouts, sometimes called "raids", which is why it's still experimental.
There are other "chans" around, acting as control groups; the most notable perhaps being 7chan, which holds those patients judged too dangerous to be held at 4chan. This is why 7chan supports HTTPS protocol, to keep the pages and images of its deranged inhabitants from escaping en route and polluting the rest of the Internet.
You might wish to suggest to your government that they, too, start their version of this asylum. After all, your ideal of sanity is mindless conformity, and chans are quite good at inducing just that - just look at Project Chanology, an activity partaken by the inmates: removing their very faces should make any dictatorship swell with a warm and fuzzy feeling.
And there are many pathways to changing the system so that it doesn't screw everyone who isn't financially succesful, but they all involve paying attention to people's bank accounts to figure out who's doing the screwing.
Yes, it is. It risks turning you into McVeigh.
Yes, it is. It keeps you from turning into Javert.
With the censorship in place in China, how are they going to tell you? Or form an informed opinion, for that matter? How do they know you aren't a government agent weeding out dissidents? How do you know you're not talking to a government agent?
I don't think you really understand what it means to live under censorship. It is not just an "issue", it means that your information sources - and thus your very thoughts - are dominated by whoever's in charge.
Asking people who live under censorship is about the same as asking a corpse if it minds being dead, often quite literally.
My point exactly. Any attempt to counteract wealth concentration is by necessity taking stuff away from the haves, and not doing so means that the have-nots are screwed. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Any proposal that grants people freedom when there's artificial intelligence results in that. And that's just fine with me. If robots can do all the work needed to run society, why shouldn't I be free to spend my time as I want? Why should I or anyone else be a wage-slave when that's not necessary for either survival, advancement or prosperity of society or any of its members?
Capitalism isn't really compatible with general-purpose intelligent robots, and employer-employee relationships certainly aren't. Communism, ironically enough, is: own the robots communally and let anyone request things from them, within the limits of their share of the resources. Now, personally, I don't think that we will switch to such a system: we've aren't running our economy rationally or for the benefit of common people as is, so why would that change? However, things can't continue as they are, much less continue getting worse, without something giving eventually. And, sooner or later, technology will advance to the point that an individual can be economically self-sufficient, so it's not like profit motive will last forever anyway.
And seeing the Rapture crowd, "God hates fags" -mob, Young Earth Creationists, and other assorted lunatics, I wonder if CC actually had a point there.
Yes, but such suggestions would mean that the rich could no longer lord it over the poor, and thus are a form of communism, and thus are evil. Why do you hate freedom so much?
Which, while strictly speaking true of all imaginable beings, is also completely irrelevant for that very reason. The relevant question is: Can we build robots smart enough to take care of and monitor children?
Actually, it sounds like someone criticized or failed to convert to your pet ideology, or at least that's what these rants are usually caused by. Can't be libertarianism, since you'd use "sheep" rather than "robots" then, nor can it be a religion since then you'd emphasize how this shows "rebellion" rather than conformity...
Okay, enlighten me: what is the large scheme of things, and what is my part in it?
If you can't answer those, you can't very well decide whether any idea I might have of my importance is over- or underestimated or just right.
I sincerely doubt that you have examined these deeply, for the simple reason that you seem to be advocating some strange form of dualism where your nervous system is somehow separate from you, and you are just a puppet to it.
To prove yourself wrong, simply drink a few pints of strong beer and notice how it affects you, rather than some entity distinct from you, thus proving that your nervous system isyou. Beer: the quick way to solve the mind-body problem and many other philosophical questions :).
Everything kills you with overconsumption, even water.
That depends on the speed of movement in the image. The more things move between two frames, the harder it will be for your eyes to connect the two images together. This is made even worse when the whole image moves, since you aren't getting corrective feedback from your inner ear.
What I'm saying is that 30 fps seems smooth, but 60 fps makes it easier to keep track of what's happening.
As people often point out here, the USA is not a direct democracy, it's a democratic republic. That means that FCC is fully within its rights - and indeed has a duty to - in ignoring the majority of the people if it thinks they are wrong. You have a remedy against this behaviour during the next elections.
Yes, and I'm not using them at all, and haven't for years. I'd be better served by selling them off and having the money used for something that benefits me. Apparently the FCC thinks that the latter is better than the former.
It's not. The question is: is the money the companies pay for them enough to justify it?
No, as you've repeatedly stated, you would be better off that way. And as I have stated, I would be better off selling them off as long as those companies pay even a single burnt wooden penny for them. As for what most benefits The People, that's for the FCC to figure out - that's why it exists.
Why is it that libertarians have such a hard time acknowledging that the interests of people other than themselves might also matter? Or am I mixing cause and effect here?
Because a government has a vested interest in keeping you healthy, while a corporation has vested interest to say that whatever they produce is healthy, whether or not it is.
Both government and corporations are made of psychopaths, but a psychotic governor might still pay some attention to your wellbeing since he considers you his property, while a corporate psycho has no such reason. That's one of the reasons to oppose libertarian plutocracy.
That's a meaningless question, since it doesn't qualify "need" with "for something". Every want can be viewed as a need ("I need designer clothes to be appreciated by my peers") and every need as a want ("I don't need to stay alive, I just want to").
So no, neither I nor anyone else has ever bought anything we didn't need; yet it's just as justified to claim that nothing you could ever buy is something you actually need.
Holy circular argument, Batman!
Everyone participates in consumer culture. Therefore those who think they don't are just deluding themselves, and are in reality participating in consumer culture. Therefore everyone participates in consumer culture.
Self-built PC compatible.
None.
No, I chose them because of price.
No, I got a price list for components from a webshop, then went through that in ascending order, checking Wikipedia for information, until I had a cheapest sufficient part for my needs in every category.
I suppose you could consider a price list a form of advertising, if you really pushed the definition.
No, I go to the store, see which one is cheapest, and buy that.
What kind of moron buys food by brand?
Actually, I buy bread.
No.
No.
No.
So, how much did I won?
The thing is, I'm not thinking in terms of brands, except when one manufacturer manages to produce such a shoddy product I'll avoid them from then on. I think in the terms of price and properties, and filter advertising out as noise.
I suppose it's always possible that astroturfers have planted false information in my sources. That's one more reason to hate them.
No, the fact that a company advertises makes choosing its products carry an unfortunate side-effect of helping fund advertising.
Actually, it's perfectly rational to take into account the long-term effects of making a particular choice, such as giving money to a company that engages in behaviours you disagree with. In fact, not taking these things into account would make your behaviour irrational, since rationality means making the choices that give you the best chance of achieving your goals while avoiding bad things (technically speaking, to maximize expected utility).
Or television.
Oh, sorry, that's something you want for free, so clearly that NEEDS to be provided.
Um, what?
Ah, that's a bit nmore reasonable. Of course, if it belongs to We The People, we need some entity to manage it.
Actually, the FCC has every right to do just that, being the very entity chartered by We The People to take care of Our common property.
The important thing here is that electromagnetic spectrum is not your private property, it's our common property; consequently, it's possible that some action concerning it - such as selling it to telecoms - might benefit most of its owners yet harm you. However, in such a case, not selling it would benefit you at the expense of most of its owners, which is hardly right.
But then again, your whining is consistent with your other comments.
Government agencies can contact me in writing if they must. In fact I find it far more likely that an unkown number calling me and claiming to be the police is actually a fraudster.
Out of curiosity: why is a government agency going out of its way to make it hard for you to confirm their identity when they contact you?
I don't want to talk to them, especially unprepared and wondering if I'm talking to a fraudster. I want a letter inviting me to either visit or call them or mail another letter, with sufficient time to think what I'm going to say.
And yes, I'll often get calls from such numbers; avoiding that is the whole point of this kind of block.
If you work in a field where employees compete for employers, congratulations; but please understand that for most people it's the other way around, so strangers contacting us are far more likely trying to get than to give us money.
"Only" a civil matter? It seems to me that the punishments from civil matters seem far harsher than from actual crimes, not to mention you have to prove your innocence to avoid them.