The only remaining tactic is to bring the Legislative process to a halt. AKA Obstructionism
So its better for the Dems to help pass these laws?
At that point, Republicans bring out their "Nukular Option (TM)" and end the filibustering.
I doubt they'd do that, especially considering the current administration isn't very popular right now. Should things swing the other way, the reps would be SOL to stop anything the dems wanted.
Oddly enough, you've got me pegged wrong. I don't "doubt logic", I doubt the bias-free application of that logic- as well as the idea that any one logical system is so perfect as to be exclusionary.
Where's the bias in an experiment that proves you can enrich uranium? Where's the bias in the engineering and physics that got us to the moon? Both are heavily rooted in pure math. How can you say (without being a troll) that you doubt the math?
You throw around 'the system' quite a bit, yet you never define it or identify problems with it other than you think its bias. How can you doubt the results of experiments that are repeatable by any other person, and that often are repeated because taking the experiment out of the lab and applying it will make someone a lot of money?
We live in more than one system- unless you're willing to learn about them all, you'll end up nothing other than just another bigot.
Fine, name the 'systems.' You keep throwing that around without ever defining what you mean. You also claim that we live in more than one, so I hope you have brought proof. Nice attempt at a slam by the way; 'you dont think as me therefore you must be a bigot.' Nevermind you've been consistently vague throughout this whole disucssion, which seems pretty trollish to me.
That doesn't necessarily solve the problem: a bottleneck in.NET might well stay that way when ngen'd.
A bottleneck in a native app will remain also. Doesn't really have to do with source vs. binary distribution.
No argument here, although I'd like to make the distinction between "native apps" and "apps with some native code". The latter is much more likely to be necessary than the former.
I'm not even sure that latter group will really be that large either. And if you ngen, you have a 'native' image. Still runs within the framework though. If you are getting at that the framework could slow things down, yes, it could. But most apps don't need ever millisecond of performance; games and realtime apps are the only two I can think of. Even then though there's a managed API for DirectX too, so the feelign I get from MS is that even high performance games can be written in.Net.
Actually, I think your response here highlights what was said earlier by others: Linux isn't a platform. LSB is a platform. Red Hat is a platform. Debian is a platform. I think it's easily conceded that targeting every Linux distribution is a lot of work, unless you're prepared to bundle your dependencies (which is sometimes not a bad way to go, then it's trivial to set up a binary installer).
Which was what I was trying to get at, although that doesn't really affect teh source vs. binary distribution methods.
Personally, although it goes against "the Linux way" in some respects, I'd love to see Ubuntu or some other Debian-derivative become the de facto standard Linux distribution, just to quell this "targeting Linux is so hard!" meme. Anyway, distributing the source and a good binary installer is a great way to encourage both end-user installation and package-writing by the various distribution maintainers.
Agreed, which was one of the points I was making; I don't really need to release source if I choose not to for Windows. It pretty much will be easily installable by your average user. The various Linux distros attempt to replicate that ease, but the problem is the many distributions all doing things their own way. That actually makes installing programs on Linux more difficult for your average user.
I would like a standard distro as well.
Certainly isn't! Coming from the Win32 API and MFC, I was shocked at how well-designed the.NET framework is by comparison. Microsoft has come a long way from those nightmarish systems. Moving the OS interface proper away from lower-level languages is less of a concern to me, as higher-level languages usually provide a clean wrapper on top of it.
As was I. As a developer doing VB6 + ASP, I was ready to say fuck it and move to Linux development. At the last minute, I was introduced to.Net. Going back would be torture.:-) That's why I hate when the zealots bash the.Net framework as just a Java rip off or useless. Its actually a great API to on which to develop.
Definitely not. I border on a Java anti-zealot, probably because of how overrated I feel it is. Although I wish C# were less Java-esque, it's at least step in the right direction if you are going to blatantly copy it. And the advent of IronPython means being "stuck" developing in a.NET environment is infinitely preferable to its Java counterpart.
Didn't want to assume; sacrasm has been biting me a lot lately. I think Java has a lot of good stuff, and I personally like.Net and where its going (looking forward to.Net 3). I actually think Java could benefit in some ways; Attributes and delegates come to mind.
But Linux still rocks:)
I agree; I just don't think its ready for me yet.;-) In all seriousness though, I was running linux, server for years and desktop for fewer years, but had to go back. I don't mind digging, but it started to feel like to get anything done / working I was REQUIRED to do so. And that was just as a user, so I dreading trying to create any apps for it..
Experiments that they never actually repeat, presented to them by anonymous sources that they never actually question.
Any evidence to back up your claim?
I find no philosophy horrific; save one: intolerance in the name of tolerance.
Science isn't a philosophy.
Who, recently, has bothered to challenge peer review?
You need only to search/. to find some instances of that.
The theories are the outcome of the traditions, not the traditions themselves.
Traditions which are firmly rooted in logic you mean? Are you questioning the scientific method? If so, I again advise you to read David Hume.
Yet we never actually test the traditions themselves- peer review for instance, but there are others. The theories are the work of the system, not the system itself.
Peer review happens. I guess you haven't read slashdot in the past few years.
Did we? Reliably? Seems to me we had more failure than success in that area- which is the reason mankind has not set foot on the moon in 20 years.
Seems to me that we did. The US has had several successful landings, as have other countries. I can't speak for other countries, but the reason the US hasn't gone back is because NASA is publicly funded, and people don't seem to care anymore about space exploration.
None of these are perfect, they all just barely work. However, the problem isn't with the successes or failures- but with the blind faith in the system itself.
Huh? Barely work? Doesn't nuclear power create electricity? Doesn't your microwave oven heat food each and every time you put it in there? I don't see people getting God to heat their food, do you?
Yes, but that's not the point. In fact, it's as much beside the point as bringing in Newton vs Einstien- that's the outcome of the system of Reasonable Theology, not the system itself.
Stay right there, the men in white jump suits should be there shortly. Science (which, by definition is not unprovable 'theory') has been able to tell us much about the world in which we live. Do we know everything? Of course not. But we are learning more everyday. Do you see the problem here with you calling science a religion? Science actually has outcomes that we can see and that anyone can reproduce or use. Unless you have another way to explain how a microwave works and can actually prove that your theory on how it works is correct.
Yes, that's the meaning of peer review- but why trust the reviewer, whom you don't know, over the peer committee, who you don't know? Or for that matter, why trust the peer committee, who you don't know, over the reviewer, who you don't know? Ultimately, it's all taken on Faith.
Um, perhaps because there's more than one peer? Perhaps because bad experiments can't be built upon? The distiction between religon and science is that if I really don't believe something, I can try the experiment myself.
Once again, that's the system working as designed, not questioning the system itself.
Again, if you doubt logic, I don't really know what to tell you. I personally have never seen anything just fly in the air without any other force acting on it, but if you want to think that can happen, feel free.
I have- I think he's as biased as any other human.
I think you miss the point he was making; yes, you can doubt everything, but that's not very useful, is it? If you want to doubt everything, please go ahead, and lock yourself in a room and try to figure out what is really real. Meanwhile the rest of us will go on to learn more about the system in which we live.
True. They believe however because of evidence placed in front of them. Experiements which they can repeat on their own.
It has a codeified set of ideological rules.
Yes, namely that for something to be true, it has to be observable and repeatable. The horror!
It has stupid traditions that are so accepted that nobody questions them.
Whoa there, I think you hurt your brain too much. The 'traditions' which you claim are always being challanged. Newtonian physics has been replaced with Einsteins theories. His theories are also being challenged. At any rate, much of what we know has been tested time and again. What do you gain by retesting something after its already been tested to death?
Looks like a religious ideology to me.
Only if you're a moron.
Well, that's what the Pope said recently- and in response the religion of peace killed nuns and rioted. But that's not my point. My point is that an unbiased human being has never existed- call it Seeber's Uncertainty Principle: Any experiment run by human beings will discover a scientific truth compatible with the biases of the human being runing the experiment.
I guess that's why we never figured out how to build vehicals that can go to the moon and back. Or why we don't have nuclear power, or microwaves or computers. The truth is that if you're trying to prove something and thus setup an improper experiement, you will be found out when others look at your research.
Well, it's more along these lines "I refuse to think, and instead I believe in only what I see and not what I don't see". It's a little more complex than that- the traditions of peer review and committees muddle the concept out more to "I believe what is printed in peer reviewed journals without asking who the anonymous peers are", but it works out to the same thing.
You've seen god, hell, angels and the devil? Journals do get reviewed. How many bogus experiements have appeared here on/. and then another story comes along saying the scientists used improper methods to conduct the exeriment?
Proof is in the eye of the beholder- it is a religious belief that doesn't really exist. Both subjective and objective thinkers are useful, but both are fooling themselves when they claim a lack of bias.
So because they paint some stupid line on some cop cars (I have actually yet to see a car that does on the east coast0 that suddenly means they can actually carry out the task?
Well, I'll paint on my car that I'm going to rule the galatic empire!
Yes, but there's a difference between civil disobedience and being a mere criminal. Someone whose a mere criminal is someone who breaks the law in secret.
Why does it matter? Honestly? If you really buy into the beliefs this country was founded on, you would know an unjust law is no law at all. The citizens mearly ignores it like its not there because in truth its not. An unjust law is unjust the moment it is signed, not after some court declares it such.
So if the child does want to be touched (much like in Ancient Greece where it was extremely common and the children weren't harmed but instead grew up to live productive lives), then it's okay?
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you talking about a 4 year old or 17? Both are defined as children.
However I think you'll be hard pressed to find any 4 year old that wants to be touched sexually. That said, being 'productive' does not mean no harm was done. I personally know a woman that was molested by her father her entire childhood (starting around age 3). She's productive (has a decent job, house, etc), but its clear that the damage done years ago is still with her. She will still have nightmares about what her father did, still feels terror even though he's dead.
Out of seven sibilings, she's the only one that is more or less normal. The others have become abusers as well and / or have drug / alcohol problems, or lock themselves away completely. Three of those even have jobs as well, but by your definition, nothing would be wrong, would it?
You should really read what our Founders were thinking when they set this whole thing up. I think you'll find it quite enlightening.
Their goal with the second amendment was not to let criminals run rampant and shooting people at will, it was so that we could protect ourselves from our government.
Well to be fair, Verizon and Adelphia (more Adelphia, wait, I mean Comcrap now..) had been fighting the city so that they could not roll their own fiber. Fortunately, they were told to STFU, and the entire city of Burlington should have fiber by the end of 2007. We'll have 5mbps down AND up.
Oddly enough though, just got something from Adelphia / Crapcast. Besides moving to more 'screw you' policies, they are bragging they'll have 6 mbps download soon (I think we are at 1 or 2). I'm certain this is because of the city fiber network (which offers a triple threat) which has 5mpbs. I'd rather give my money to the city managed (but privately funded) communications provider instead of the largest, most corrupt cable company in the US.
I guess my point is, if you want FTTH, start a movement rolling to get it as a public utility. I wish I could say I was involved in such a movement, but I didn't find out about BT until I got a flyer in my electric bill about it (and they had already started building). Yes, the electric company is a city department too I believe.:-)
Well, I can't read the article because I don't have an account.
At any rate, I do happen to live in Vermont. FWIW, 'rural Vermont' is pretty much the whole state, except for the Greater Burlington area.
Also FWIW, in the most rural parts, there are bigger problems than no broadband. Inbreeding is actually a pretty big problem, and some of those people in the rural areas don't even have a phone, or if they do, do not know how to use it. My wife works in the hospital and has to deal with people that don't know how to use a phone more often that you'd think.
Well, I don't consider 256k broadband by any stretch.
I do think broadband should be available everywhere as well. I guess my point was that we should have never waited for the telcos to do this; we should have gotten municipalities to do it for us a while ago.
That's a weird point to make, unless you're claiming there's no need for native code any more.
There is. One of the lesser known features of.Net is that you can ngen your code, which will take the IL binary and convert it into an actual native binary. All the assemblies that come with.Net are ngened in this way. The nice thing is that if you do develop on.Net and Windows (as I don't think there's an ngen for Mono) you KNOW this is avaiable.
Largely though you don't really need native apps anyway.
That was not the claim. The claim was that Windows' binary compatibility advantages were lessened by foreign architectures. You then explained that your app runs on 64-bit systems no problem, which was not related to the binary distribution vs source distribution discussion.
Well, with WoW and the.Net framework, distributing binaries is easier, regardless of 'foreign architectures.' Both of those allow me to distribute binaries without worrying about the architecture. OTOH, distributing source with a make file, a developer DOES have to worry about not only different architechtures, but with Linux, different distributions as well.
Well, if I package my program for Debian, it really doesn't matter whether or not Python comes standard with the distribution, it'll get picked up as a dependency automatically.
But that doesn't help you get your application to RedHat, Mandriva, etc. This actually highlights my points I think; even if you package your application, you can't be sure to reach most of the distributions on the platform. With Windows this isn't the case; not only is there only one 'distribution' but MS has been working hard to make your app work with the current versions.
This would be more accurately phrased "Microsoft's goal is to replace the Win32 API with.NET" (btw, good for them!). Of course nothing in the Linux world has a similar goal, any more than Microsoft has any goal to replace the Linux kernel API: both are ridiculous non-goals. Or did you mean something else? Technically Java isn't just a VM either, if you're counting things like cross-platform compatibility layers on top of the various OS services (sockets, threads, etc) as separates-the-men-from-the-VMs kind of features.
MS' goal in replacing the current API is to cut down on common programming mistakes, like memory leaks and buffer overflows. I don't think that's a bad goal personally.
I was merely using Java as historical precedent, I would never assert its superiority to.NET.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. I also didn't mean to sound as if I was bashing Java. I would like to learn it personally. There are differences, and there are things in.Net that would be nice in Java, but I don't think its 'inferior.' My point was that by targeting the framework, you can target more than one architecture (like in Java) and still distribute binary applications.
Since when is it the job of the police to guarantee anyone's safety? If you think that's their purpose you're seriously delusional. No one can guarantee your safety, not even you.
So that arguement for free speech zones is just stupid. The truth is that its a violation of the first amendment; the right of the people to peacably gather. I don't recall anywhere in the amendment that says the government could limit WHERE that gathering takes place.
Um, we are not in highschool. And yes the passenger in question, and all of us, should be suprised and alarmed by this. The whole purpose of free speech is to defend unpopular speech.
Sure you wouldn't THINK that insulting someone's institution would matter, and by all reasonable standards it shouldn't but that's your problem and why none of you can understand this--you're thinking too much. But to the kind of brute who'd work for the TSA, that kind of stuff definitely does matter.
So you're saying any reasonable person wouldn't understand this and then say its odd for reasonable people not to understand this? If society was working correctly, even the dumb brutes that make up the TSA should be able to understand what they can and cannot do, and if they do things they aren't supposed to, they will be punished.
Take me, for instance. I go to WVU's School of Medicine, but I did my undergrad at Virginia Tech. I absolutely CANNOT wear any of my Virginia Tech clothing around town because of the very reasonable fear that some idiot will start trouble. Have my rights to free speech been violated as a tried and true Hokie? It's the same thing...
Yes, they have actually. Threat of force which stifles speech is infringing on someone's right to free speech.
What is the difference between you wearing a VT shirt and a free speech zone where you cannot have speech outside of a zone UNDER THREAT OF FORCE.
That's a much bigger difference than 286 -> 386. It's just that AMD64 also happens to support the old 32-bit applications.
286 -> 386 was also a move from 16 bit to 32 bit, so I don't see how 32 -> 64 is a 'much bigger difference.'
At any rate, the point here is that Windows doesn't "support" the architecture difference, it's done at the hardware level.
This is not true. You can install 64 bit Windows and run applications compliled for 32 bit Windows. It does this via the WoW (Windows on Windows) compatability layer.
So wait, as a point in Windows' favor you claim that your app runs "on 64-bit" without issue, then admit that it's actually running on the CLR?
My point was that Windows comes with the.Net framework, which makes it irrelevent how many bits the underlying hardware is. This was to counter the claim that I had to recompile my app for 64 bit.
That's all well and good... for the CLR..NET isn't exclusive to Windows
Yes and no. I haven't tried porting anything to Mono, so I don't know how far along Mono is. From what I understand though, System.Security and System.Windows.Forms are missing.
I could say the same thing about my Python application, but that wouldn't be a point in Debian's favor.
I would say no, but because Python may or may not be included standard with RedHat, Ubutana (whatever), Slack, etc.
Java programmers have been enjoying this luxury for years, but clearly the discussion is only relevant to native applications, not those built on explicitly cross-platform VMs.
Sort of. Java leads to write once test everywhere, as we've seen. The difference though is that.Net isn't just a VM, its end goal is to replace the Win32 API completely. I don't know of anything in the Linux world that has a similar goal.
As a developer, I am certain that going forward the.Net framework will be shipping with Windows. I know that I can target ANY version of it I want. Java apps even break across the same version but different platforms, let alone across version changes.
SP1 isn't supported anymore, so I don't know why you're still running it. At any rate, I would install SP2 before going off to install other patches anyway...
Windows breaks, windows users are stupid. Those are simple facts which will not penetrate past your fan boi mind but they are true nevertheless.
Pot, meet kettle.
Yes, you are a zealot. Not all Windows users are dumb, nor does every Windows user 'break' something at least once a week. That is a true and apt statement, so I suggest you deal with it. I doubt you can though, since you are a zealot.
Slashdot Mirror
The only remaining tactic is to bring the Legislative process to a halt. AKA Obstructionism
So its better for the Dems to help pass these laws?
At that point, Republicans bring out their "Nukular Option (TM)" and end the filibustering.
I doubt they'd do that, especially considering the current administration isn't very popular right now. Should things swing the other way, the reps would be SOL to stop anything the dems wanted.
It would but at the same time no company is going to take you to court of $125. They aren't a bank, after all.
Is there anyway you could close your account and just say 'suck it, youre not getting the 125?'
Oddly enough, you've got me pegged wrong. I don't "doubt logic", I doubt the bias-free application of that logic- as well as the idea that any one logical system is so perfect as to be exclusionary.
Where's the bias in an experiment that proves you can enrich uranium? Where's the bias in the engineering and physics that got us to the moon? Both are heavily rooted in pure math. How can you say (without being a troll) that you doubt the math?
You throw around 'the system' quite a bit, yet you never define it or identify problems with it other than you think its bias. How can you doubt the results of experiments that are repeatable by any other person, and that often are repeated because taking the experiment out of the lab and applying it will make someone a lot of money?
We live in more than one system- unless you're willing to learn about them all, you'll end up nothing other than just another bigot.
Fine, name the 'systems.' You keep throwing that around without ever defining what you mean. You also claim that we live in more than one, so I hope you have brought proof. Nice attempt at a slam by the way; 'you dont think as me therefore you must be a bigot.' Nevermind you've been consistently vague throughout this whole disucssion, which seems pretty trollish to me.
That doesn't necessarily solve the problem: a bottleneck in .NET might well stay that way when ngen'd.
.Net.
.NET framework is by comparison. Microsoft has come a long way from those nightmarish systems. Moving the OS interface proper away from lower-level languages is less of a concern to me, as higher-level languages usually provide a clean wrapper on top of it.
.Net. Going back would be torture. :-) That's why I hate when the zealots bash the .Net framework as just a Java rip off or useless. Its actually a great API to on which to develop.
.NET environment is infinitely preferable to its Java counterpart.
.Net and where its going (looking forward to .Net 3). I actually think Java could benefit in some ways; Attributes and delegates come to mind.
:)
;-) In all seriousness though, I was running linux, server for years and desktop for fewer years, but had to go back. I don't mind digging, but it started to feel like to get anything done / working I was REQUIRED to do so. And that was just as a user, so I dreading trying to create any apps for it..
A bottleneck in a native app will remain also. Doesn't really have to do with source vs. binary distribution.
No argument here, although I'd like to make the distinction between "native apps" and "apps with some native code". The latter is much more likely to be necessary than the former.
I'm not even sure that latter group will really be that large either. And if you ngen, you have a 'native' image. Still runs within the framework though. If you are getting at that the framework could slow things down, yes, it could. But most apps don't need ever millisecond of performance; games and realtime apps are the only two I can think of. Even then though there's a managed API for DirectX too, so the feelign I get from MS is that even high performance games can be written in
Actually, I think your response here highlights what was said earlier by others: Linux isn't a platform. LSB is a platform. Red Hat is a platform. Debian is a platform. I think it's easily conceded that targeting every Linux distribution is a lot of work, unless you're prepared to bundle your dependencies (which is sometimes not a bad way to go, then it's trivial to set up a binary installer).
Which was what I was trying to get at, although that doesn't really affect teh source vs. binary distribution methods.
Personally, although it goes against "the Linux way" in some respects, I'd love to see Ubuntu or some other Debian-derivative become the de facto standard Linux distribution, just to quell this "targeting Linux is so hard!" meme. Anyway, distributing the source and a good binary installer is a great way to encourage both end-user installation and package-writing by the various distribution maintainers.
Agreed, which was one of the points I was making; I don't really need to release source if I choose not to for Windows. It pretty much will be easily installable by your average user. The various Linux distros attempt to replicate that ease, but the problem is the many distributions all doing things their own way. That actually makes installing programs on Linux more difficult for your average user.
I would like a standard distro as well.
Certainly isn't! Coming from the Win32 API and MFC, I was shocked at how well-designed the
As was I. As a developer doing VB6 + ASP, I was ready to say fuck it and move to Linux development. At the last minute, I was introduced to
Definitely not. I border on a Java anti-zealot, probably because of how overrated I feel it is. Although I wish C# were less Java-esque, it's at least step in the right direction if you are going to blatantly copy it. And the advent of IronPython means being "stuck" developing in a
Didn't want to assume; sacrasm has been biting me a lot lately. I think Java has a lot of good stuff, and I personally like
But Linux still rocks
I agree; I just don't think its ready for me yet.
May I ask what you're paying for that internet connection? The city will be charging $40 / month for 5mbits (up / down).
Experiments that they never actually repeat, presented to them by anonymous sources that they never actually question.
/. to find some instances of that.
Any evidence to back up your claim?
I find no philosophy horrific; save one: intolerance in the name of tolerance.
Science isn't a philosophy.
Who, recently, has bothered to challenge peer review?
You need only to search
The theories are the outcome of the traditions, not the traditions themselves.
Traditions which are firmly rooted in logic you mean? Are you questioning the scientific method? If so, I again advise you to read David Hume.
Yet we never actually test the traditions themselves- peer review for instance, but there are others. The theories are the work of the system, not the system itself.
Peer review happens. I guess you haven't read slashdot in the past few years.
Did we? Reliably? Seems to me we had more failure than success in that area- which is the reason mankind has not set foot on the moon in 20 years.
Seems to me that we did. The US has had several successful landings, as have other countries. I can't speak for other countries, but the reason the US hasn't gone back is because NASA is publicly funded, and people don't seem to care anymore about space exploration.
None of these are perfect, they all just barely work. However, the problem isn't with the successes or failures- but with the blind faith in the system itself.
Huh? Barely work? Doesn't nuclear power create electricity? Doesn't your microwave oven heat food each and every time you put it in there? I don't see people getting God to heat their food, do you?
Yes, but that's not the point. In fact, it's as much beside the point as bringing in Newton vs Einstien- that's the outcome of the system of Reasonable Theology, not the system itself.
Stay right there, the men in white jump suits should be there shortly. Science (which, by definition is not unprovable 'theory') has been able to tell us much about the world in which we live. Do we know everything? Of course not. But we are learning more everyday. Do you see the problem here with you calling science a religion? Science actually has outcomes that we can see and that anyone can reproduce or use. Unless you have another way to explain how a microwave works and can actually prove that your theory on how it works is correct.
Yes, that's the meaning of peer review- but why trust the reviewer, whom you don't know, over the peer committee, who you don't know? Or for that matter, why trust the peer committee, who you don't know, over the reviewer, who you don't know? Ultimately, it's all taken on Faith.
Um, perhaps because there's more than one peer? Perhaps because bad experiments can't be built upon? The distiction between religon and science is that if I really don't believe something, I can try the experiment myself.
Once again, that's the system working as designed, not questioning the system itself.
Again, if you doubt logic, I don't really know what to tell you. I personally have never seen anything just fly in the air without any other force acting on it, but if you want to think that can happen, feel free.
I have- I think he's as biased as any other human.
I think you miss the point he was making; yes, you can doubt everything, but that's not very useful, is it? If you want to doubt everything, please go ahead, and lock yourself in a room and try to figure out what is really real. Meanwhile the rest of us will go on to learn more about the system in which we live.
You mean as opposed to sitting there letting the religous wackjobs push us back to the darkages?
It has believers.
/. and then another story comes along saying the scientists used improper methods to conduct the exeriment?
True. They believe however because of evidence placed in front of them. Experiements which they can repeat on their own.
It has a codeified set of ideological rules.
Yes, namely that for something to be true, it has to be observable and repeatable. The horror!
It has stupid traditions that are so accepted that nobody questions them.
Whoa there, I think you hurt your brain too much. The 'traditions' which you claim are always being challanged. Newtonian physics has been replaced with Einsteins theories. His theories are also being challenged. At any rate, much of what we know has been tested time and again. What do you gain by retesting something after its already been tested to death?
Looks like a religious ideology to me.
Only if you're a moron.
Well, that's what the Pope said recently- and in response the religion of peace killed nuns and rioted. But that's not my point. My point is that an unbiased human being has never existed- call it Seeber's Uncertainty Principle: Any experiment run by human beings will discover a scientific truth compatible with the biases of the human being runing the experiment.
I guess that's why we never figured out how to build vehicals that can go to the moon and back. Or why we don't have nuclear power, or microwaves or computers. The truth is that if you're trying to prove something and thus setup an improper experiement, you will be found out when others look at your research.
Well, it's more along these lines "I refuse to think, and instead I believe in only what I see and not what I don't see". It's a little more complex than that- the traditions of peer review and committees muddle the concept out more to "I believe what is printed in peer reviewed journals without asking who the anonymous peers are", but it works out to the same thing.
You've seen god, hell, angels and the devil? Journals do get reviewed. How many bogus experiements have appeared here on
Proof is in the eye of the beholder- it is a religious belief that doesn't really exist. Both subjective and objective thinkers are useful, but both are fooling themselves when they claim a lack of bias.
You need to read David Hume I think.
So because they paint some stupid line on some cop cars (I have actually yet to see a car that does on the east coast0 that suddenly means they can actually carry out the task?
Well, I'll paint on my car that I'm going to rule the galatic empire!
Yes, but there's a difference between civil disobedience and being a mere criminal. Someone whose a mere criminal is someone who breaks the law in secret.
Why does it matter? Honestly? If you really buy into the beliefs this country was founded on, you would know an unjust law is no law at all. The citizens mearly ignores it like its not there because in truth its not. An unjust law is unjust the moment it is signed, not after some court declares it such.
So if the child does want to be touched (much like in Ancient Greece where it was extremely common and the children weren't harmed but instead grew up to live productive lives), then it's okay?
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you talking about a 4 year old or 17? Both are defined as children.
However I think you'll be hard pressed to find any 4 year old that wants to be touched sexually. That said, being 'productive' does not mean no harm was done. I personally know a woman that was molested by her father her entire childhood (starting around age 3). She's productive (has a decent job, house, etc), but its clear that the damage done years ago is still with her. She will still have nightmares about what her father did, still feels terror even though he's dead.
Out of seven sibilings, she's the only one that is more or less normal. The others have become abusers as well and / or have drug / alcohol problems, or lock themselves away completely. Three of those even have jobs as well, but by your definition, nothing would be wrong, would it?
You should really read what our Founders were thinking when they set this whole thing up. I think you'll find it quite enlightening.
Their goal with the second amendment was not to let criminals run rampant and shooting people at will, it was so that we could protect ourselves from our government.
Well to be fair, Verizon and Adelphia (more Adelphia, wait, I mean Comcrap now..) had been fighting the city so that they could not roll their own fiber. Fortunately, they were told to STFU, and the entire city of Burlington should have fiber by the end of 2007. We'll have 5mbps down AND up.
:-)
Oddly enough though, just got something from Adelphia / Crapcast. Besides moving to more 'screw you' policies, they are bragging they'll have 6 mbps download soon (I think we are at 1 or 2). I'm certain this is because of the city fiber network (which offers a triple threat) which has 5mpbs. I'd rather give my money to the city managed (but privately funded) communications provider instead of the largest, most corrupt cable company in the US.
I guess my point is, if you want FTTH, start a movement rolling to get it as a public utility. I wish I could say I was involved in such a movement, but I didn't find out about BT until I got a flyer in my electric bill about it (and they had already started building). Yes, the electric company is a city department too I believe.
Well, I can't read the article because I don't have an account.
:-)
At any rate, I do happen to live in Vermont. FWIW, 'rural Vermont' is pretty much the whole state, except for the Greater Burlington area.
Also FWIW, in the most rural parts, there are bigger problems than no broadband. Inbreeding is actually a pretty big problem, and some of those people in the rural areas don't even have a phone, or if they do, do not know how to use it. My wife works in the hospital and has to deal with people that don't know how to use a phone more often that you'd think.
Finally, I'm originally from Philly.
Well, I don't consider 256k broadband by any stretch.
I do think broadband should be available everywhere as well. I guess my point was that we should have never waited for the telcos to do this; we should have gotten municipalities to do it for us a while ago.
That's a weird point to make, unless you're claiming there's no need for native code any more.
.Net is that you can ngen your code, which will take the IL binary and convert it into an actual native binary. All the assemblies that come with .Net are ngened in this way. The nice thing is that if you do develop on .Net and Windows (as I don't think there's an ngen for Mono) you KNOW this is avaiable.
.Net framework, distributing binaries is easier, regardless of 'foreign architectures.' Both of those allow me to distribute binaries without worrying about the architecture. OTOH, distributing source with a make file, a developer DOES have to worry about not only different architechtures, but with Linux, different distributions as well.
.NET" (btw, good for them!). Of course nothing in the Linux world has a similar goal, any more than Microsoft has any goal to replace the Linux kernel API: both are ridiculous non-goals. Or did you mean something else? Technically Java isn't just a VM either, if you're counting things like cross-platform compatibility layers on top of the various OS services (sockets, threads, etc) as separates-the-men-from-the-VMs kind of features.
.NET.
.Net that would be nice in Java, but I don't think its 'inferior.' My point was that by targeting the framework, you can target more than one architecture (like in Java) and still distribute binary applications.
There is. One of the lesser known features of
Largely though you don't really need native apps anyway.
That was not the claim. The claim was that Windows' binary compatibility advantages were lessened by foreign architectures. You then explained that your app runs on 64-bit systems no problem, which was not related to the binary distribution vs source distribution discussion.
Well, with WoW and the
Well, if I package my program for Debian, it really doesn't matter whether or not Python comes standard with the distribution, it'll get picked up as a dependency automatically.
But that doesn't help you get your application to RedHat, Mandriva, etc. This actually highlights my points I think; even if you package your application, you can't be sure to reach most of the distributions on the platform. With Windows this isn't the case; not only is there only one 'distribution' but MS has been working hard to make your app work with the current versions.
This would be more accurately phrased "Microsoft's goal is to replace the Win32 API with
MS' goal in replacing the current API is to cut down on common programming mistakes, like memory leaks and buffer overflows. I don't think that's a bad goal personally.
I was merely using Java as historical precedent, I would never assert its superiority to
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. I also didn't mean to sound as if I was bashing Java. I would like to learn it personally. There are differences, and there are things in
Well, I'm in the 'who cares' boat. My city is rolling FTTH RIGHT NOW. I'll be hooked up by next year, at the latest.
Constitutions only work when the people in charge feel constrained by their content
Hence the reason for the second amendment.
Since when is it the job of the police to guarantee anyone's safety? If you think that's their purpose you're seriously delusional. No one can guarantee your safety, not even you.
So that arguement for free speech zones is just stupid. The truth is that its a violation of the first amendment; the right of the people to peacably gather. I don't recall anywhere in the amendment that says the government could limit WHERE that gathering takes place.
Um, we are not in highschool. And yes the passenger in question, and all of us, should be suprised and alarmed by this. The whole purpose of free speech is to defend unpopular speech.
Sure you wouldn't THINK that insulting someone's institution would matter, and by all reasonable standards it shouldn't but that's your problem and why none of you can understand this--you're thinking too much. But to the kind of brute who'd work for the TSA, that kind of stuff definitely does matter.
So you're saying any reasonable person wouldn't understand this and then say its odd for reasonable people not to understand this? If society was working correctly, even the dumb brutes that make up the TSA should be able to understand what they can and cannot do, and if they do things they aren't supposed to, they will be punished.
Take me, for instance. I go to WVU's School of Medicine, but I did my undergrad at Virginia Tech. I absolutely CANNOT wear any of my Virginia Tech clothing around town because of the very reasonable fear that some idiot will start trouble. Have my rights to free speech been violated as a tried and true Hokie? It's the same thing...
Yes, they have actually. Threat of force which stifles speech is infringing on someone's right to free speech.
What is the difference between you wearing a VT shirt and a free speech zone where you cannot have speech outside of a zone UNDER THREAT OF FORCE.
That's a much bigger difference than 286 -> 386. It's just that AMD64 also happens to support the old 32-bit applications.
.Net framework, which makes it irrelevent how many bits the underlying hardware is. This was to counter the claim that I had to recompile my app for 64 bit.
.NET isn't exclusive to Windows
.Net isn't just a VM, its end goal is to replace the Win32 API completely. I don't know of anything in the Linux world that has a similar goal.
.Net framework will be shipping with Windows. I know that I can target ANY version of it I want. Java apps even break across the same version but different platforms, let alone across version changes.
286 -> 386 was also a move from 16 bit to 32 bit, so I don't see how 32 -> 64 is a 'much bigger difference.'
At any rate, the point here is that Windows doesn't "support" the architecture difference, it's done at the hardware level.
This is not true. You can install 64 bit Windows and run applications compliled for 32 bit Windows. It does this via the WoW (Windows on Windows) compatability layer.
So wait, as a point in Windows' favor you claim that your app runs "on 64-bit" without issue, then admit that it's actually running on the CLR?
My point was that Windows comes with the
That's all well and good... for the CLR.
Yes and no. I haven't tried porting anything to Mono, so I don't know how far along Mono is. From what I understand though, System.Security and System.Windows.Forms are missing.
I could say the same thing about my Python application, but that wouldn't be a point in Debian's favor.
I would say no, but because Python may or may not be included standard with RedHat, Ubutana (whatever), Slack, etc.
Java programmers have been enjoying this luxury for years, but clearly the discussion is only relevant to native applications, not those built on explicitly cross-platform VMs.
Sort of. Java leads to write once test everywhere, as we've seen. The difference though is that
As a developer, I am certain that going forward the
The vast majority of programs for Linux though are not .Net, and thus do suffer the problem I'm talking about.
.Net out of the equation, and you still have the problems I described.
Also pretty much all of non-.Net Windows programs come with installers as well.
So I guess my answer is take
SP1 isn't supported anymore, so I don't know why you're still running it. At any rate, I would install SP2 before going off to install other patches anyway...
Some of the IE code is actaully running in kernel mode.
Reference please?
Windows breaks, windows users are stupid. Those are simple facts which will not penetrate past your fan boi mind but they are true nevertheless.
Pot, meet kettle.
Yes, you are a zealot. Not all Windows users are dumb, nor does every Windows user 'break' something at least once a week. That is a true and apt statement, so I suggest you deal with it. I doubt you can though, since you are a zealot.