No, because when terrorists attack us they create terror. America spends billions of dollars in response to a ten thousand dollar attack. The American people accept anal probes and X-rays and wire taps because they fear terrorists. Our country is still generally held together, with a gentle undertone of mass hysteria.
It's like beating a dog. The dog is slightly frightened, and you beat it more until it listens you. If you beat the dog and it gets angry, you run away. After you do this a dozen times, the dog starts to not like you the moment you show up. Eventually you realize this is a bad idea and the dog is not listening to you, and then you are afraid of the dog.
The German nuclear scientists were mainly Jews. Besides constantly fleeing Germany at any chance they got, even the ones that stayed also refused to build a bomb; they convinced the party that a bomb would be difficult and infeasible, but nuclear power would allow them to upscale gas-to-liquid and coal-to-liquid production so as to supply enough fuel for their airforce to overwhelm the world.
Germany wanted nuclear power because the scientists there did NOT want Germany to have nuclear bombs; had they not defected, had they admitted a bomb would have such unbelievable weight on the war as to bring them victory in a single sweeping blow to London as a warning to the rest of the world, Germany may have developed H-Bombs in 3-5 years while the world still feared their nuclear arsenal. They WOULD have developed an H-Bomb in under a decade; it's too easy.
I'm not talking about the little issues where it's being disclosed that some people cheat on their wives... that indeed wasn't necessary to disclose (and it'll be forgotten soon).
Probably teh only interesting thing in the lump, though Ih aven't looked.
The "War on Terror" is far more abstract and ambiguous than the Cold War ever was, and the more ambiguous the threat, the more easily otherwise irrational (re)actions can be justified. "They're plotting to destroy us!" Who are "they"? Well, we don't know. How could they possibly destroy us or, in fact, do anything other than bloody our noses? Well, we don't know that either, but we have very active imaginations, and they probably do too!
This is ridiculous. Warriors do not swing swords at shadows; they swing swords at assassins that come out of the shadows. Stop swinging your sword at the shadows; it makes you a pathetically easy target. The shadows are harmless, even when assassins are hiding in them; deal with the assassins when they find the courage to come out and face you.
A specific high-energy frequency of ultra-violet that causes ionization. High-power blacklights don't cause sunburns but they're UV; low-power sterilizing lights cause skin burns and cancer.
I also make the assertion that things are not black and white: you are dealing with terrorist sects whom we know are planning large-scale murder. You are dealing with a known high-level strategic commander with large amounts of useful intelligence. There is an implied line between "gathering information" and "saving lives" here, although it has not yet taken solid form.
Let's talk about Go for a moment. In Go, you build shapes, vague outlines, influence. Sometimes you wall your opponent in through stones vaguely connected by the large keima (long knight's move) with neighboring support. A direct attack won't allow your opponent to cut your stones, and you can collapse and kill these stones now; however, to do so immediately is a waste of moves, and allows your opponent to play elsewhere and gain a stronger position.
To deal with this, you must make the (correct) judgment to come back here later; instead, play elsewhere to retain influence and try to keep sente. While you do this, however, you must keep an eye on the whole board position: friendly stones near your opponent's now-surrounded group may provide a way for your opponent to cut, and now your stones are in danger. Only those of high skill can recognize precisely when to connect and when to play elsewhere; and even then, the exact moment isn't entirely sure, and a better player may in fact make the cut and escape, or may take a better move when you attempt to connect early due to a perceived threat.
Once it is clear that that the enemy threatens to cut that line (i.e. make the gathering of information immaterial such that it won't save any lives), it is too late to act; yet it is extremely difficult to give a precise explanation of WHEN that moment passes and WHAT conditions show that it is time to act. These subtleties are difficult enough in Go; but when dealing with military intelligence, human torture, and warfare in general, it becomes nigh impossible. One day the imperative to know what a man knows becomes so important, so immediate, that you MUST beat it out of him; but how long can he stand to the torture? How willing is he to lie at first? How long will it take to confirm, recognize the lies, and then either work from that point to complete the truth or go back and beat the truth from him?
The question of "what" is easy. One man holds intelligence, the liberation of which will save lives. This is absolute fact: if every captured enemy talked freely, we would have a concrete plan of continuously taking prisoners-of-war as major assets. The cold war was practically won by one defector; World War 2 was won ENTIRELY by a handful of defected German scientists (so the history books say...). We KNOW the value of information.
What you are asking is the question of "when." When do we need to torture these people? When is the information they hold so damned important that we need to beat, burn, and drug it out of them? When do we need to start in order to get past their mental defenses--how long does it take to break the individual?
Military strategy is a very fine and intricate game. It unfortunately costs lives. More unfortunately, military leaders and the general public are short-sighted: the ends justify the means when we sacrifice hundreds of lives TODAY to save thousands TOMORROW, and complete RESISTANCE to terrorism would be our most effective weapon. When hostages are taken, we should abandon the welfare of the hostages; stop trying to negotiate with terrorists, go kill them and bring back the survivors. Some will die, too bad. When they realize that we will fight them at every turn, they will leave off their ineffective terror strategy. Unfortunately, we can't see letting a few people die ever any different from extracting intelligence by torture: it's so horrible and inhumane not to fight for every life, even if the fight only puts more lives in danger and loses thousands more in the long run.
However, we claim as Americans to be better than that. We claim to believe in that every human being possesses certain inalienable rights by virtue of his humanity. We cannot espouse such an ideal while also claiming that in war the end justifies the means. The two are contradictory.
Fools claim that they are "above such immoral and inhumane practices" while they stand aside impotently and allow thousands of innocents to die.
I am above killing people. If I see a suicide bomber entering a high school, should I take the moral high ground and stay out of it? Or should I pull a glock from my hip holster and put a bullet in the back of his head? That's murder, isn't it?
I am a a fan of Morihei Ueshiba. Still, you need to understand that the world is neither black and white nor conveniently built to fit your strange and mystical conception of ethics. The ends justify the means when all other means lead to worser ends. Warriors are engaged in the eternal struggle for life: when we stop fighting, we allow death, both of ourselves and of those who rely on us for protection.
We must attack our enemies directly; those who attack innocents as a form of morale pressure are cowards (we call them "terrorists," but let's have the truth eh?), even below those who simply raze the land of life as conquest. If our best means to prevent such villains from taking more lives is to beat information out of hostile captives with key knowledge, then you can take comfort in the fact that they are cowards and will not stand for long when faced with their own nightmares.
To put things straight, Musashi, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli also fantasized about a state military machine wholly concerned with the welfare of the state and the people in it. In other words, they didn't account for nightmare situations like Orwell described in 1984. We are afraid of torture because we foolishly believe that we won't have the Ministry of Love if we ban torture; but if that situation happens, we will have whatever it takes for such a party to stay in power, including underground re-education facilities.
Finally I ask: do the means justify the ends? See my above scenario about murdering a suicide bomber. Also consider: if you know the intelligence a particular captive possesses can save the lives of hundreds of civilians, are you justified in preventing the extraction of information from that captive by any means necessary? You have saved him pain and suffering, at the cost of hundreds of lives. Where is your moral high ground now?
I think advanced research into improved torture methods would be nice. Waterboarding is cool because it gives the impression of suffocation and drowning; but for the most part it's harmless. It's also not terribly likely to cause deep-seated psychological problems on its own, though the overall environment can be a nightmare: a dark room, shiny lights, men in suits with implements of pain and dismemberment, locked away in a hole for months in a dirty cell with almost no food and long periods without water, sleep deprivation... yeah.
The nice thing about waterboarding is you can pretty much grab someone you're otherwise taking decent care of, strap them to an inclined board, throw a towel over their face, and start dumping water on it; the primal fear that kicks in is brutal, but rather temporary. That's "humane" enough.
What most people don't understand is how very useful and important torture is in warfare. They talk about being "humane" when dealing with people who are capturing civilian tourists and beheading them. They talk about being "sensitive" to people who have taken key roles in planning suicide bombings and plane hijacks that will kill tens, hundreds, or even thousands (WTC collapse of 2001) of people. We somehow can't accept five minutes of fear and pain in one barbaric, murdering individual in trade for the potential to save hundreds or thousands of lives, much less condone the days or weeks of beatings, druggings, psychological games, and sleep deprivation we may have to inflict to get information.
Wake up. Warfare isn't pretty. Stop being retarded. Read Musashi and Sun Tzi.
A wine bottle is a bludgeon weapon and airline seats are too tight for Aikido so I guess you get to lose your arm when a Penjak Silat guru decides to tear it off.
Your Certificate and CRL come from the CA. You pass the CA's cert down, and then the certs for the Web apps come from the Web server signed by the CA and there you go.
I bought The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant in German when I first started learning, but I didn't start reading it yet. I got through lesson 16 of Pimsleur's courses.
Vocabulary isn't an issue. Rapid recognition of sentence structure and natural language flow is an issue. In my third year of spanish, people (including me) were STILL plodding along with "X == Y... wait de has to come first... ok rearrange these words..." With my Japanese and German, I quickly learned (by repeated exposure) to recognize the structure; although my vocabulary is minimal, expanding my vocabulary works just like English.
In short, I know the language, but don't have any vocabulary for it.
Cheap cables can degrade the sound, mostly by having too small a wire gauge for the main conductor. Thus, on average, judging cables by their diameter tends to result in a better metric for sound quality than any other factor you could pick....
Yes exactly. Of course you could buy $120 Monster cables that are just $12 thick cables with a gold plated connector... I doubt they're even really shielded, at best with braided aluminum.
I've gone through various cards and I can definitely tell a difference between grades. The gold shielded $1000 cables are bullshit; but an obscenely thin aluminum cable will destroy sound and video quality (there are truly shit products out there), and the solution to that is a $12 RCA cable (audio/video/stereo) instead of the chinese crap that came with your game system.
A low-end SB Live! or SB Audigy card, however, works wonderfully. The Emu10k1 chipset in the audigy clearly provides a higher grade than a Yamaha card (the YMF724 chipset is horrible, I've had 3 and the lowest grade one would play 128kbit/s MP3s sounding like 16kbit/s by some ungodly magic), and in a less dramatic fashion provides a clear improvement over an on-board AC97 Via or Realtek. It's to the point that they both sound fine; but if you listen to both you'll pick it up easy, and if you're used to one or the other then switching will generate a shocking "wow that's good" or "wow that's bad" reaction.
One thing that surprised me was when I switched to using my Motorola Cliq (shitty phone) for an MP3 player. I figured it would have the same (or worse) sound quality as my 64 gig iPod, but when I plugged the headphones (that I was using for the iPod) into it I was immediately surprised by the massive improvement in sound quality. There was a less dramatic difference between the iPod video and USB-stick (i.e. 512M) Shuffle; the Shuffle was vaguely better, but not much.
It's there. It's not game-setting, but it's there.
I find the Pimsleur courses the most helpful; although I've been designing my own sort. What I want to do is go directly to applications; the first 4-6 Pimsleur lessons seem to set up a codepage enough that I can learn the language easier by interpretation (i.e. they teach my brain the very basic foundation, but don't give me a viable structure; I need the whole course for that). From there I'm thinking going into philosophical proverbs (one-liners), poetry, songs, and then stories would be more helpful. Not a linear course, but rather a two-part construction branching in multiple directions: Exposure to new grammar, explanations, new vocabulary, etc; then just copies of the stuff. Mixed in with the course.
So you'd learn i.e. Morehei Ueshiba quotes and Japanese poetry like Sakura etc for Japanese; German drinking songs in German; and so on. Things that may interest you, that get mixed in with your own amusement. It'd be branched off the main courses, but it would offer more full exposure-- longer songs, eventually audiobooks for short stories. A book is going to be a huge bantering of continuous language, with repeated explanation of grammar and new vocabulary, slowly draining away until there's nothing left. And also, a copy of the story without any such annotation. And of course a book of the material for reference.
I'm learning multiple languages at once and there's a certain amount of naturalization that goes into it. If you don't have constant exposure to conversation, you start translating. You need something to force rapid recall. Pimsleur got that right; I'm not really sure any particular part of their course is misguided at all, though that doesn't mean there isn't room for a more advanced theory to supersede it.
Actually he marketed a concept. When he sold DOS to IBM, IBM already had Commodore... who was delaying their IBMPCOS project heavily. Lots of promises, lots of nothing to show for it. Gates convinced IBM that Commodore's PC operating system was ages-off vaporware and that he could do it faster.
I said lands with guys like Simon. Simon has all these nice, fancy ideas on paper (he has a few exchanges on the site) that never work out in real life. Some of us can see these at a glance. Sometimes it's an awesome idea but the wrong TIME; sometimes it's (sadly) an idea that'll be great, but first implementer is going to fail and second player will take over; sometimes it's just a shitty idea; sometimes it's a solution looking for a problem, and while it's decent and not-shitty it's also trying to create new problems (as it is a solution looking to solve a non-existent problem) and we don't want that.
In this case, replacing the windowing system with something entirely different is unnecessary and mindless. Rewriting the whole fucking thing from scratch but putting the same interface out, the same APIs, etc but with a completely different internal design would be awesome. Paradigm shifts I see no need for; the problem is implementation, not paradigm. An incremental improvement might be good, but something completely alien usually is worse than bad.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because when terrorists attack us they create terror. America spends billions of dollars in response to a ten thousand dollar attack. The American people accept anal probes and X-rays and wire taps because they fear terrorists. Our country is still generally held together, with a gentle undertone of mass hysteria.
It's like beating a dog. The dog is slightly frightened, and you beat it more until it listens you. If you beat the dog and it gets angry, you run away. After you do this a dozen times, the dog starts to not like you the moment you show up. Eventually you realize this is a bad idea and the dog is not listening to you, and then you are afraid of the dog.
The German nuclear scientists were mainly Jews. Besides constantly fleeing Germany at any chance they got, even the ones that stayed also refused to build a bomb; they convinced the party that a bomb would be difficult and infeasible, but nuclear power would allow them to upscale gas-to-liquid and coal-to-liquid production so as to supply enough fuel for their airforce to overwhelm the world.
Germany wanted nuclear power because the scientists there did NOT want Germany to have nuclear bombs; had they not defected, had they admitted a bomb would have such unbelievable weight on the war as to bring them victory in a single sweeping blow to London as a warning to the rest of the world, Germany may have developed H-Bombs in 3-5 years while the world still feared their nuclear arsenal. They WOULD have developed an H-Bomb in under a decade; it's too easy.
You do realize that the best way to gain power is to become allies with everyone, then backstab your allies?
I'm not talking about the little issues where it's being disclosed that some people cheat on their wives... that indeed wasn't necessary to disclose (and it'll be forgotten soon).
Probably teh only interesting thing in the lump, though Ih aven't looked.
The "War on Terror" is far more abstract and ambiguous than the Cold War ever was, and the more ambiguous the threat, the more easily otherwise irrational (re)actions can be justified. "They're plotting to destroy us!" Who are "they"? Well, we don't know. How could they possibly destroy us or, in fact, do anything other than bloody our noses? Well, we don't know that either, but we have very active imaginations, and they probably do too!
This is ridiculous. Warriors do not swing swords at shadows; they swing swords at assassins that come out of the shadows. Stop swinging your sword at the shadows; it makes you a pathetically easy target. The shadows are harmless, even when assassins are hiding in them; deal with the assassins when they find the courage to come out and face you.
A specific high-energy frequency of ultra-violet that causes ionization. High-power blacklights don't cause sunburns but they're UV; low-power sterilizing lights cause skin burns and cancer.
I also make the assertion that things are not black and white: you are dealing with terrorist sects whom we know are planning large-scale murder. You are dealing with a known high-level strategic commander with large amounts of useful intelligence. There is an implied line between "gathering information" and "saving lives" here, although it has not yet taken solid form.
Let's talk about Go for a moment. In Go, you build shapes, vague outlines, influence. Sometimes you wall your opponent in through stones vaguely connected by the large keima (long knight's move) with neighboring support. A direct attack won't allow your opponent to cut your stones, and you can collapse and kill these stones now; however, to do so immediately is a waste of moves, and allows your opponent to play elsewhere and gain a stronger position.
To deal with this, you must make the (correct) judgment to come back here later; instead, play elsewhere to retain influence and try to keep sente. While you do this, however, you must keep an eye on the whole board position: friendly stones near your opponent's now-surrounded group may provide a way for your opponent to cut, and now your stones are in danger. Only those of high skill can recognize precisely when to connect and when to play elsewhere; and even then, the exact moment isn't entirely sure, and a better player may in fact make the cut and escape, or may take a better move when you attempt to connect early due to a perceived threat.
Once it is clear that that the enemy threatens to cut that line (i.e. make the gathering of information immaterial such that it won't save any lives), it is too late to act; yet it is extremely difficult to give a precise explanation of WHEN that moment passes and WHAT conditions show that it is time to act. These subtleties are difficult enough in Go; but when dealing with military intelligence, human torture, and warfare in general, it becomes nigh impossible. One day the imperative to know what a man knows becomes so important, so immediate, that you MUST beat it out of him; but how long can he stand to the torture? How willing is he to lie at first? How long will it take to confirm, recognize the lies, and then either work from that point to complete the truth or go back and beat the truth from him?
The question of "what" is easy. One man holds intelligence, the liberation of which will save lives. This is absolute fact: if every captured enemy talked freely, we would have a concrete plan of continuously taking prisoners-of-war as major assets. The cold war was practically won by one defector; World War 2 was won ENTIRELY by a handful of defected German scientists (so the history books say...). We KNOW the value of information.
What you are asking is the question of "when." When do we need to torture these people? When is the information they hold so damned important that we need to beat, burn, and drug it out of them? When do we need to start in order to get past their mental defenses--how long does it take to break the individual?
Military strategy is a very fine and intricate game. It unfortunately costs lives. More unfortunately, military leaders and the general public are short-sighted: the ends justify the means when we sacrifice hundreds of lives TODAY to save thousands TOMORROW, and complete RESISTANCE to terrorism would be our most effective weapon. When hostages are taken, we should abandon the welfare of the hostages; stop trying to negotiate with terrorists, go kill them and bring back the survivors. Some will die, too bad. When they realize that we will fight them at every turn, they will leave off their ineffective terror strategy. Unfortunately, we can't see letting a few people die ever any different from extracting intelligence by torture: it's so horrible and inhumane not to fight for every life, even if the fight only puts more lives in danger and loses thousands more in the long run.
UV is not harmful. Stop being silly.
However, we claim as Americans to be better than that. We claim to believe in that every human being possesses certain inalienable rights by virtue of his humanity. We cannot espouse such an ideal while also claiming that in war the end justifies the means. The two are contradictory.
Fools claim that they are "above such immoral and inhumane practices" while they stand aside impotently and allow thousands of innocents to die.
I am above killing people. If I see a suicide bomber entering a high school, should I take the moral high ground and stay out of it? Or should I pull a glock from my hip holster and put a bullet in the back of his head? That's murder, isn't it?
I am a a fan of Morihei Ueshiba. Still, you need to understand that the world is neither black and white nor conveniently built to fit your strange and mystical conception of ethics. The ends justify the means when all other means lead to worser ends. Warriors are engaged in the eternal struggle for life: when we stop fighting, we allow death, both of ourselves and of those who rely on us for protection.
We must attack our enemies directly; those who attack innocents as a form of morale pressure are cowards (we call them "terrorists," but let's have the truth eh?), even below those who simply raze the land of life as conquest. If our best means to prevent such villains from taking more lives is to beat information out of hostile captives with key knowledge, then you can take comfort in the fact that they are cowards and will not stand for long when faced with their own nightmares.
To put things straight, Musashi, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli also fantasized about a state military machine wholly concerned with the welfare of the state and the people in it. In other words, they didn't account for nightmare situations like Orwell described in 1984. We are afraid of torture because we foolishly believe that we won't have the Ministry of Love if we ban torture; but if that situation happens, we will have whatever it takes for such a party to stay in power, including underground re-education facilities.
Finally I ask: do the means justify the ends? See my above scenario about murdering a suicide bomber. Also consider: if you know the intelligence a particular captive possesses can save the lives of hundreds of civilians, are you justified in preventing the extraction of information from that captive by any means necessary? You have saved him pain and suffering, at the cost of hundreds of lives. Where is your moral high ground now?
I think advanced research into improved torture methods would be nice. Waterboarding is cool because it gives the impression of suffocation and drowning; but for the most part it's harmless. It's also not terribly likely to cause deep-seated psychological problems on its own, though the overall environment can be a nightmare: a dark room, shiny lights, men in suits with implements of pain and dismemberment, locked away in a hole for months in a dirty cell with almost no food and long periods without water, sleep deprivation... yeah.
The nice thing about waterboarding is you can pretty much grab someone you're otherwise taking decent care of, strap them to an inclined board, throw a towel over their face, and start dumping water on it; the primal fear that kicks in is brutal, but rather temporary. That's "humane" enough.
What most people don't understand is how very useful and important torture is in warfare. They talk about being "humane" when dealing with people who are capturing civilian tourists and beheading them. They talk about being "sensitive" to people who have taken key roles in planning suicide bombings and plane hijacks that will kill tens, hundreds, or even thousands (WTC collapse of 2001) of people. We somehow can't accept five minutes of fear and pain in one barbaric, murdering individual in trade for the potential to save hundreds or thousands of lives, much less condone the days or weeks of beatings, druggings, psychological games, and sleep deprivation we may have to inflict to get information.
Wake up. Warfare isn't pretty. Stop being retarded. Read Musashi and Sun Tzi.
A wine bottle is a bludgeon weapon and airline seats are too tight for Aikido so I guess you get to lose your arm when a Penjak Silat guru decides to tear it off.
Dude you generate the cert yourself, you stand up the server yourself, and you're good.
Your Certificate and CRL come from the CA. You pass the CA's cert down, and then the certs for the Web apps come from the Web server signed by the CA and there you go.
That was my first thought. How is this even a question?
I bought The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant in German when I first started learning, but I didn't start reading it yet. I got through lesson 16 of Pimsleur's courses.
Vocabulary isn't an issue. Rapid recognition of sentence structure and natural language flow is an issue. In my third year of spanish, people (including me) were STILL plodding along with "X == Y... wait de has to come first... ok rearrange these words..." With my Japanese and German, I quickly learned (by repeated exposure) to recognize the structure; although my vocabulary is minimal, expanding my vocabulary works just like English.
In short, I know the language, but don't have any vocabulary for it.
Cheap cables can degrade the sound, mostly by having too small a wire gauge for the main conductor. Thus, on average, judging cables by their diameter tends to result in a better metric for sound quality than any other factor you could pick....
Yes exactly. Of course you could buy $120 Monster cables that are just $12 thick cables with a gold plated connector... I doubt they're even really shielded, at best with braided aluminum.
I've gone through various cards and I can definitely tell a difference between grades. The gold shielded $1000 cables are bullshit; but an obscenely thin aluminum cable will destroy sound and video quality (there are truly shit products out there), and the solution to that is a $12 RCA cable (audio/video/stereo) instead of the chinese crap that came with your game system.
A low-end SB Live! or SB Audigy card, however, works wonderfully. The Emu10k1 chipset in the audigy clearly provides a higher grade than a Yamaha card (the YMF724 chipset is horrible, I've had 3 and the lowest grade one would play 128kbit/s MP3s sounding like 16kbit/s by some ungodly magic), and in a less dramatic fashion provides a clear improvement over an on-board AC97 Via or Realtek. It's to the point that they both sound fine; but if you listen to both you'll pick it up easy, and if you're used to one or the other then switching will generate a shocking "wow that's good" or "wow that's bad" reaction.
One thing that surprised me was when I switched to using my Motorola Cliq (shitty phone) for an MP3 player. I figured it would have the same (or worse) sound quality as my 64 gig iPod, but when I plugged the headphones (that I was using for the iPod) into it I was immediately surprised by the massive improvement in sound quality. There was a less dramatic difference between the iPod video and USB-stick (i.e. 512M) Shuffle; the Shuffle was vaguely better, but not much.
It's there. It's not game-setting, but it's there.
I find the Pimsleur courses the most helpful; although I've been designing my own sort. What I want to do is go directly to applications; the first 4-6 Pimsleur lessons seem to set up a codepage enough that I can learn the language easier by interpretation (i.e. they teach my brain the very basic foundation, but don't give me a viable structure; I need the whole course for that). From there I'm thinking going into philosophical proverbs (one-liners), poetry, songs, and then stories would be more helpful. Not a linear course, but rather a two-part construction branching in multiple directions: Exposure to new grammar, explanations, new vocabulary, etc; then just copies of the stuff. Mixed in with the course.
So you'd learn i.e. Morehei Ueshiba quotes and Japanese poetry like Sakura etc for Japanese; German drinking songs in German; and so on. Things that may interest you, that get mixed in with your own amusement. It'd be branched off the main courses, but it would offer more full exposure-- longer songs, eventually audiobooks for short stories. A book is going to be a huge bantering of continuous language, with repeated explanation of grammar and new vocabulary, slowly draining away until there's nothing left. And also, a copy of the story without any such annotation. And of course a book of the material for reference.
I'm learning multiple languages at once and there's a certain amount of naturalization that goes into it. If you don't have constant exposure to conversation, you start translating. You need something to force rapid recall. Pimsleur got that right; I'm not really sure any particular part of their course is misguided at all, though that doesn't mean there isn't room for a more advanced theory to supersede it.
Actually he marketed a concept. When he sold DOS to IBM, IBM already had Commodore... who was delaying their IBMPCOS project heavily. Lots of promises, lots of nothing to show for it. Gates convinced IBM that Commodore's PC operating system was ages-off vaporware and that he could do it faster.
I said lands with guys like Simon. Simon has all these nice, fancy ideas on paper (he has a few exchanges on the site) that never work out in real life. Some of us can see these at a glance. Sometimes it's an awesome idea but the wrong TIME; sometimes it's (sadly) an idea that'll be great, but first implementer is going to fail and second player will take over; sometimes it's just a shitty idea; sometimes it's a solution looking for a problem, and while it's decent and not-shitty it's also trying to create new problems (as it is a solution looking to solve a non-existent problem) and we don't want that.
In this case, replacing the windowing system with something entirely different is unnecessary and mindless. Rewriting the whole fucking thing from scratch but putting the same interface out, the same APIs, etc but with a completely different internal design would be awesome. Paradigm shifts I see no need for; the problem is implementation, not paradigm. An incremental improvement might be good, but something completely alien usually is worse than bad.
http://www.27bslash6.com/p2p2.html
I've been trying to move LWN to userspace for years.
Does the ad hominim add homonyms?
(a single process runs through a list of processes that need to be started and/or stopped and does this)
Yes that's sysvinit. Upstart is a bit more advanced (event reactive and dependency aware).