The thing that is specific to Linux/geek is that we see no docs and poor installation setups as a fun challenge and brag about it when we conquer it.
Maybe I'm not a real linux geek, but...
I *hate* when something is difficult for no good reason. A 'monumental effort to get where others have gone before, and anyone with enough time can get' is a monumental waste of time.
RANT
This isn't like the NYT crossword puzzle. The point of the install is not to just have done it. What's so fun and challenging about wasting orders of magnitude more geekhours installing than the documentation/packaging would have taken? It often seems that developers are masochists. It is not reasonable making people play Where's Waldo with the source just install stuff.
While it's not cool to complain that your free widget wasn't a good enough free widget[ unless you're gunna do something about it]- That only works for those already invested in it.
On the other hand:
1. There are negative consequences to crap doc/packaging.
Make it clear that it's less probable to get this thing running than your '64 Fiat "thats been sitting a while."
2. If nothing exists that installs reasonably easily, on most new base-distro installs, then 'Linux' doesn't really "have it" yet.
If most people that want "those features" can't get them, you're gunna turn off more potential friends that simply didn't have the time 'you' wasted, than fans who will pick up the reigns.
3. Developers should put a little more effort into doc, maybe cut that 2 day install down to 4hrs.
It's far more likely that fans would contribute to building the doc that brings it down to 45 minutes. /RANT
Finally, a heartfelt THANK YOU for all the great and not so great FREE software. And, oh yeah, I still brag about it...
second of all, this would be interesting to mix with a car exhaust, if you can find components that wouldn't die in the heat. imagine straight-pipe exhausts that are quieter than today's systems with mufflers!
First, someone was doing this years back. Can't for the life of me say who, but I saw it on TV, so;) Seriously, someone had a prototype sonic interference type muffler system.
Secondly, someone posted about this above, adding the fun idea of additionally altering the emotional qualities of your exhaust...
I actually submitted the same story earlier 'Undead for dinner?', which isn't really worth mentioning, save for the fact that the following (basically) happened:
[typing in blurb]Lobsters frozen down to as cold as -40
f
[hrm wait was it C??] [backspace]c
[Crap I better go find the article again]
[pinky on CTRL to begin "tab-surfing"]
[Groan and exclaim, outloud to self, 'I can be such a f*cking idiot sometimes] [backspace]
reanimated when thawed.
[Giggles a bit thinking of what happens to the fool who 'catches my mistake' and replies before reason catches up]
[completes blurb]
Ok, maybe you had to be there...
PS [Feels stupid for having wasted time submitting an 'article' to/.]:)
A mistake of this magnitude really calls for the removal of ALL of his geek-points, immediate surrender of any ssh keys, termination of all accounts on any non-windows machines, immediate discontinuation of WEP encryption, reversion to SSID "netgear", and unrestricted enablement of "File & Printer Sharing".
Unless he can demonstrate how a Honda can get more people somewhere than then the highway they now use... Well actually more like the license plate and turn signals on a honda but I'll let him off easy:)
Ok so after 'reading' the bill. and ass-u-ming that (1)(a)(i)(A)(B)(ii)(2) etc. translates to:
1 +- a | + i | | +- A...<aka 1(a)i.A> | | +- B | | | +-ii | +- b
2
[If you attempted to RTFB, you understand...]
Then simply changing 5
From:
(a) software designed and installed solely to diagnose or resolve technical difficulties;
To:
(a) software designed and installed solely to diagnose, prevent, or resolve technical difficulties;
--changes in bold--
`Friggen' resolves the 'so broad it gets benevolent software' problem.
Or has someone else found something I [completely plausably given the fustercluck of formatting and politi-bloat] missed?
TRANSITIVE VERB: To transform (an image) by computer: cinematic special effects that morphed the villain into a snake. INTRANSITIVE VERB: To be transformed: ?Yesterday's filmstrip has morphed into today's school computer? (Clifford Stoll, New York Times May 19, 1996). ETYMOLOGY: Shortening of metamorphose.
"-reprogram the computer"... What car is this? I've never heard of OBD-II allowing people to change ECU parameters, besides clearing any existing trouble codes. Besides that, I haven't heard of OBD-II software that includes a feature for setting ECU values.
I know for a fact that GM y-body, and V8 f-body cars can be [LT1,LT5, and LS1]. Or let me say it this way: there is software written and available to do it. It's a matter or demand. I don't know what other cars people have written such software for.
A little googling, and I can tell you that someone will do custom VW tuning ONLINE! Narf! You hook your car up OBDII->Puter, and a 'web interface' allows them to upload a new proggy for you.
In retrospect, ONSTAR, wow cool, and eeek scary... Why that never occured to me before...
Not to belittle your plight- I understand your pain.
But- The cost of a 'niche' micro-run supercharger package has to be what? $3000? $5000? And then you need a serious exhaust [note: NOT a stupid-huge 'tip'] which has to run $1000+. And don't forget a new clutch ?$500?, more than likely better brakes[$$$], and almost certainly new final gearing.
At that point, is it REALLY the extra $1000-1500 and put an aftermarket ECU in that prohibits this?
There are lots of more 'kludgie' possibilities, like:a 'yes dear' module that alters sensor data to keep the OEM ECU in closed loop (aka Happy), while using a combo of BTM[Removes timing once in boost]/AFU[Adds fuel] to give you horsies.
I'm a gear head. I know lots of geeks who are gear heads. I, however, have never encountered a problem due to inability to access 'calibration codes'.
I know that you can hook your laptop up to your OBDI/II based vehicle. What can ya do?
-monitor telemetry in real time [RPM,Throttle position, timing, fuel inject pulse lengths, etc.]
-read error codes stored in computer [terse format]
-reprogram the computer[really the data on which decisions are made, not the heuristics themselves]*
*You can't change stuff on earlier computers! Must be that we don't have the 'calibration code' to make a PROM into an EEPROM?!
Seriously though! What you need to 'know' to fix a car is:
Interface specification
Table of error/condition codes and triggering parameters.
Wiring diagrams, mechanical diagrams, parts lists, etc.
how modern cars work
From what I understand, the Interfaces are standardized [think ISO,IEEE, not RFC]. The error codes, and at least short descriptions, are available. The diagrams, etc. are available via repair manuals/KB Systems. I know that at least some manufacturers publish/authorize official such products. As for knowledge, can't legislate that:)
What information is being withheld that makes non-dealer repair impossible?
This creates serious privacy issues. One day the US government will make it law for every US citizen to wear clothes made out of these bendy wires, working as sensors. This way the government can monitor your every action.
And then they can monitor what stimulates you, and know all of your perversions!
I think perhaps you are forgetting one thing: Now your tinfoil hat can be stylish, comfortable, and stealthy enough for you to leave your house!
Crap, on second thought, this makes it even worse on the rest of us...
The biggest practical problem with selling custom CDs is that it takes time. I mean most of us get annoyed waiting for our 'coffee like beverage' from vending machines.
In reality the casual-cup-time should nicely eliminate the percieved lack of instant gratification.
For example, if we can only detect an object from 1,000 LightYears away, what if that thing is moving at 1 million LY? Wouldn't we be hit seconds after we 'saw' it?
Im gunna be nice. I promise.
Arggggnnnnnnnnnnn. so-hard-to-maintain-decorum
[Calmness Grasshopper]
If it is 1000 LY from us,
f(x)=Time-to-impact
> HS physics says f(x)=1000LY / x 1 of Uncle Al's theories points out that:
As lim(speed ->infinity] the function becomes divergent around f(c)
For the more dense: The minimum possible real time-till-munging cannot be less than 1000 years
It's a question of degree... some religions (e.g. astrology, vodoun) are strongly syncretic; others are somewhat syncretic (e.g. Christianity); some tend to resist syncresis (e.g. Islam -- the Koran exists *in Arabic*, thus cannot be "translated"), etc.
That is undoubtably the more accurate accessment.
Just as modern chemistry owes a debt to alchemy.
Also true. In retrospect, I now realise I misinterpreted the tone of your comment.
At least I posted some stuff that was valid, almost interesting, in my misguided reply. Proving once again: While I'm may not always right, Im never wrong.:)
but the question is, if Griffiths committed no crime in his home country, should the US be allowed to hijack.au laws?
Hijack can, by definition, never be justified. This is a false question as originally phrased. One can correct this by removing only the editorialization of the verb. The neutral, and factual question is:
"if Griffiths committed no crime in his home country, should the US be allowed to
preempt.au laws?"
Note: preempt is a synonym of hijack, without implied negative connotation.
So that is how I definitively qualify my question as more "real." Objectivism isn't at issue when discussing an objective question.
Even if you think that whether he will be extradited matters more than whether he should be (and I don't agree that it does) that still wouldn't make the latter question non-"real".
Actually I am saying no such thing. It frankly doesn't matter if he 'should' be, or not. And technically, the question of 'should' is only justly defined in the context of shared 'social' common morality. If you don't agree with my definition of 'should' then realise that you are defending, among other things, that religious beliefs are equaly valid for evaluating what 'should' and 'should not' be.
In this case, questioning 'whether he should be [extradited]' is questioning the justness of the Australian government. However, I don't get much of that out of this. Conversely, I see a lot more implication that the US shouldn't be asking for extradition. Which is totally irrelevant to the initial question.
And please refrain from confusing my positive analysis as my normative beliefs in the future.
Also note I would have been stating that: I feel that my question is more "real" than the question that everyone else here is discussing.
Still, at least this discovery has the redeeming quality of completely fucking up astrology.
Astrology doesn't work that way.
True. But it also doesn't work period:)
I think the fact that the signs of the Zodiac are all of by at least 1 is proof enough. The zodiac shifts with the earth's procession, which IIRC is about 30deg (1'Zodiac'=1/12*360deg=30deg) in the past 2000 years or so. However the 'Zodiac' doesn't take this into account. Your 'sign' isn't really the 'sign' you were born under.
Astrology is syncretic religion -- it readily (and inevitably) incorporates new influences.
Sorry, but:
So would be Judaism, Christianity, et al.
syncretic does
not seem to involve active incorporation.
On the face of it, the more 'syncretic' a religion is, the more it was
designed.
...Usually, IMHO, to be palatable to potential followers.
The problem with most 'astrology' is that, unlike the 'existence of god', which cannot be disproven [!prove negatives], one can prove it's theorums and postulations false.
Example:
Heavy use of the Zodiac
Based on influence of star position at a quantized point in one's existance.
Zodiac is a construct of definite stars and constellations
The relative positions of the Zodiac are the same today as in any equivelant date in the past/future
The positions of those stars/constellations is significantly and materially different today from their corrosponding locations in the Zodiac
[3 dots in a triangle formation]
The predictions that involved the Zodiac cannot be both true now and at points in the past.
[insert Bug's Bunny end of show quote]:) Oh, in fairness, without astrology we wouldn't have astronomy- or at least not nearly as much of it.
"legitimate scientific value in the area of
fluidized beds, the mixing of solid particles with liquids and gases..."
So I'm the only person warped enough to have gross and immature thoughts about this passage?? Not that the first has ever happened to me [really, I SWEAR] but we all know someone... And the second, while it could refer to 'praying to the goddess,' I'm pretty sure it's the gastro-intestinal penalty the following afternoon. [aka Ice-ass, keg-ass, da Beasties, etc.]
The real question is: Do[es] the extradition treatie[s] between the US and Oz require or allow extradition in this case.
The morality or ethics of the answer is the question everyone here seems to be discussing.
I think it's a damn easy question to answer as long as you retain presumption of innocence and the intention of giving a fair hearing.
That is, specifically, an issue regarding whether potential constitutional issues would override treaty requirements. Knowing nothing about Australian ConLaw, etc., I can't even begin to BS about it.
What is the argument in favor of extradition?
That it is a legal requirement of a treaty. [If it is- see above 'real question']
Think about it-
If there is a higher probability of an unavoidable caldera 'event.' WTF difference will it make if you are at Yellowstone, or in LA, etc? I don't think it's going to dramatically alter your survival rate!
Temper the above with the fact that 'sooner than later' agreably could mean 2210 vs 12210 as much as 2005... No? And then factor in the massive propensity for stupid-human-tricks and demonstrations-in-poor-reasoning...
I'm not saying that there is a coverup, just that it wouldn't be so totally unfathomable.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm not a real linux geek, but...
I *hate* when something is difficult for no good reason. A 'monumental effort to get where others have gone before, and anyone with enough time can get' is a monumental waste of time.
RANTThis isn't like the NYT crossword puzzle. The point of the install is not to just have done it. What's so fun and challenging about wasting orders of magnitude more geekhours installing than the documentation/packaging would have taken?
It often seems that developers are masochists. It is not reasonable making people play Where's Waldo with the source just install stuff.
While it's not cool to complain that your free widget wasn't a good enough free widget[ unless you're gunna do something about it]- That only works for those already invested in it.
On the other hand:
1. There are negative consequences to crap doc/packaging. Make it clear that it's less probable to get this thing running than your '64 Fiat "thats been sitting a while." 2. If nothing exists that installs reasonably easily, on most new base-distro installs, then 'Linux' doesn't really "have it" yet. If most people that want "those features" can't get them, you're gunna turn off more potential friends that simply didn't have the time 'you' wasted, than fans who will pick up the reigns. 3. Developers should put a little more effort into doc, maybe cut that 2 day install down to 4hrs. It's far more likely that fans would contribute to building the doc that brings it down to 45 minutes./RANT
Finally, a heartfelt THANK YOU for all the great and not so great FREE software. And, oh yeah, I still brag about it...
First, someone was doing this years back. Can't for the life of me say who, but I saw it on TV, so ;) Seriously, someone had a prototype sonic interference type muffler system.
Secondly, someone posted about this above, adding the fun idea of additionally altering the emotional qualities of your exhaust...
[typing in blurb]Lobsters frozen down to as cold as -40
f
[hrm wait was it C??]
[backspace]c
[Crap I better go find the article again]
[pinky on CTRL to begin "tab-surfing"]
[Groan and exclaim, outloud to self, 'I can be such a f*cking idiot sometimes]
[backspace]
reanimated when thawed.
[Giggles a bit thinking of what happens to the fool who 'catches my mistake' and replies before reason catches up]
[completes blurb]
Ok, maybe you had to be there...
PS [Feels stupid for having wasted time submitting an 'article' to /.] :)
PPS [Again]
A mistake of this magnitude really calls for the removal of ALL of his geek-points, immediate surrender of any ssh keys, termination of all accounts on any non-windows machines, immediate discontinuation of WEP encryption, reversion to SSID "netgear", and unrestricted enablement of "File & Printer Sharing".
Unless he can demonstrate how a Honda can get more people somewhere than then the highway they now use... Well actually more like the license plate and turn signals on a honda but I'll let him off easy :)
Remote controlled orgasms to cost 9,500
:)
Ahem...
[If you attempted to RTFB, you understand...]
Then simply changing 5
From: (a) software designed and installed solely to diagnose or resolve technical difficulties; To: (a) software designed and installed solely to diagnose, prevent, or resolve technical difficulties; --changes in bold--`Friggen' resolves the 'so broad it gets benevolent software' problem.
Or has someone else found something I [completely plausably given the fustercluck of formatting and politi-bloat] missed?
I know for a fact that GM y-body, and V8 f-body cars can be [LT1,LT5, and LS1]. Or let me say it this way: there is software written and available to do it. It's a matter or demand. I don't know what other cars people have written such software for.
A little googling, and I can tell you that someone will do custom VW tuning ONLINE! Narf! You hook your car up OBDII->Puter, and a 'web interface' allows them to upload a new proggy for you.
In retrospect, ONSTAR, wow cool, and eeek scary...
Why that never occured to me before...
But- The cost of a 'niche' micro-run supercharger package has to be what? $3000? $5000? And then you need a serious exhaust [note: NOT a stupid-huge 'tip'] which has to run $1000+. And don't forget a new clutch ?$500?, more than likely better brakes[$$$], and almost certainly new final gearing.
At that point, is it REALLY the extra $1000-1500 and put an aftermarket ECU in that prohibits this?
There are lots of more 'kludgie' possibilities, like:a 'yes dear' module that alters sensor data to keep the OEM ECU in closed loop (aka Happy), while using a combo of BTM[Removes timing once in boost]/AFU[Adds fuel] to give you horsies.
And remember kids, sometimes it is bad to knock!I'm a gear head. I know lots of geeks who are gear heads. I, however, have never encountered a problem due to inability to access 'calibration codes'.
I know that you can hook your laptop up to your OBDI/II based vehicle. What can ya do?
-monitor telemetry in real time [RPM,Throttle position, timing, fuel inject pulse lengths, etc.]
-read error codes stored in computer [terse format]
-reprogram the computer[really the data on which decisions are made, not the heuristics themselves]*
*You can't change stuff on earlier computers! Must be that we don't have the 'calibration code' to make a PROM into an EEPROM?!
Seriously though! What you need to 'know' to fix a car is:
Interface specification
Table of error/condition codes and triggering parameters.
Wiring diagrams, mechanical diagrams, parts lists, etc.
how modern cars work
From what I understand, the Interfaces are standardized [think ISO,IEEE, not RFC]. The error codes, and at least short descriptions, are available. The diagrams, etc. are available via repair manuals/KB Systems. I know that at least some manufacturers publish/authorize official such products. As for knowledge, can't legislate that:)
What information is being withheld that makes non-dealer repair impossible?
And what are 'calibration codes'?And then they can monitor what stimulates you, and know all of your perversions!
I think perhaps you are forgetting one thing: Now your tinfoil hat can be stylish, comfortable, and stealthy enough for you to leave your house!
Crap, on second thought, this makes it even worse on the rest of us...
:)Whoever did that speaks volumes in favor of 'pure democracy.' Read the whole thread first next time...
And I knew better than say 'Objectivism,' but
If I were posting as an AC, I'd be embarassed for me.social constraints make this look wierd.
In reality the casual-cup-time should nicely eliminate the percieved lack of instant gratification.
Im gunna be nice. I promise.
Arggggnnnnnnnnnnn. so-hard-to-maintain-decorum
[Calmness Grasshopper]
If it is 1000 LY from us,
Tounge so firmly planted in cheek...
That is undoubtably the more accurate accessment.
Also true. In retrospect, I now realise I misinterpreted the tone of your comment.
At least I posted some stuff that was valid, almost interesting, in my misguided reply. Proving once again: While I'm may not always right, Im never wrong. :)
Sir, Im afraid my Karma just ran over your DogmaHijack can, by definition, never be justified. This is a false question as originally phrased. One can correct this by removing only the editorialization of the verb. The neutral, and factual question is:
Note: preempt is a synonym of hijack, without implied negative connotation.So that is how I definitively qualify my question as more "real." Objectivism isn't at issue when discussing an objective question.
Actually I am saying no such thing. It frankly doesn't matter if he 'should' be, or not. And technically, the question of 'should' is only justly defined in the context of shared 'social' common morality.
If you don't agree with my definition of 'should' then realise that you are defending, among other things, that religious beliefs are equaly valid for evaluating what 'should' and 'should not' be.
In this case, questioning 'whether he should be [extradited]' is questioning the justness of the Australian government. However, I don't get much of that out of this. Conversely, I see a lot more implication that the US shouldn't be asking for extradition. Which is totally irrelevant to the initial question.
And please refrain from confusing my positive analysis as my normative beliefs in the future.
Also note I would have been stating that: I feel that my question is more "real" than the question that everyone else here is discussing.
I think the fact that the signs of the Zodiac are all of by at least 1 is proof enough. The zodiac shifts with the earth's procession, which IIRC is about 30deg (1'Zodiac'=1/12*360deg=30deg) in the past 2000 years or so. However the 'Zodiac' doesn't take this into account. Your 'sign' isn't really the 'sign' you were born under.
Sorry, but:
The problem with most 'astrology' is that, unlike the 'existence of god', which cannot be disproven [!prove negatives], one can prove it's theorums and postulations false.
Example:
- The positions of those stars/constellations is significantly and materially different today from their corrosponding locations in the Zodiac
[3 dots in a triangle formation]- The predictions that involved the Zodiac cannot be both true now and at points in the past.
[insert Bug's Bunny end of show quote]Oh, in fairness, without astrology we wouldn't have astronomy- or at least not nearly as much of it.
So I'm the only person warped enough to have gross and immature thoughts about this passage??
Not that the first has ever happened to me [really, I SWEAR] but we all know someone...
And the second, while it could refer to 'praying to the goddess,' I'm pretty sure it's the gastro-intestinal penalty the following afternoon. [aka Ice-ass, keg-ass, da Beasties, etc.]
If you ever drank a lot of beer, don't even...
Do[es] the extradition treatie[s] between the US and Oz require or allow extradition in this case.
The morality or ethics of the answer is the question everyone here seems to be discussing.
That is, specifically, an issue regarding whether potential constitutional issues would override treaty requirements. Knowing nothing about Australian ConLaw, etc., I can't even begin to BS about it.
That it is a legal requirement of a treaty. [If it is- see above 'real question']
Your confuse grammatical with Word's; me think.
You're being a Grammar Nazi- for which I still hate you, but cannot shun you...
No Words for you!
You mean Berkeley?
:)A locust plague is threatening several west African nations and could affect the Middle East this spring The JTA adds that Rampaging swarms of locusts that darken the sky and consume everything in their path have long been one of the most feared natural phenomena in the region
So at least the 'big' big man is being even handed...
A point worth noting, because they mean different things... [Really]
Think about it-
If there is a higher probability of an unavoidable caldera 'event.' WTF difference will it make if you are at Yellowstone, or in LA, etc? I don't think it's going to dramatically alter your survival rate!
Temper the above with the fact that 'sooner than later' agreably could mean 2210 vs 12210 as much as 2005... No? And then factor in the massive propensity for stupid-human-tricks and demonstrations-in-poor-reasoning...
I'm not saying that there is a coverup, just that it wouldn't be so totally unfathomable.
Although if announced, Mel has his sequel