I'm hardly going to accept death for the benefit of other people, and it's impressively irritating that other people expect me to do it for them. The previous generation didn't have anything wrong with them, I'd love it if some of them were still around and I'd never begrudge them extra time.
It seems silly to value something simply because we have little of it. I value my life because it's USEFUL, not because it's short.
I have a harder time considering it a "deep" question. It's not my intention to flame but I've heard similar arguments enough times to know that if you ponder any subject long enough, everything seems reasonable.
Personally I consider myself a soulless collection of atoms that just happens to have a stream of conciousness. Beyond the other things in life, my MAIN goal is insuring that stream continues unbroken. I've always thought that was an acceptable definition, therefore; if I suffer any kind of brain damage, that's still me, just changed. But if I get copied, the result is not the original stream and is therefore not me.
My point is that you don't need to believe in a soul to not desire to copy yourself endlessly.
It's brilliant and I agree almost completely. I have one caveat though, I wanted to point out that both Charles Darwin and Isaac Newton had impressive family fortunes and my understanding is that one of the main reasons they had so much time to research was that they could live off this.
In essence I disagree with your parasites analysis, being able to use someone else's money is worth something and that something is paid back as the interest. There's also the fact that I would love to leave my children enough so they won't have to plan how to leave University as fast as possible or obsess over their first job and how they'll work their way up. In essence, if it's THEIR money they're spending, people can do as they wish. It's when you're a King and tax the people for your luxuries that things become more iffy.
The totally free argument is ancient as is the counterpoint. All places have restrictions, it just varies depending on the place's history. The only place that's completely free is a warzone or so deep in the desert/ocean that no government can be stuffed exerting influence. The ultimate problem with living in such a place is that people being to exercise their freedoms, which inevitably impact the people around them.
For example, you might have no problems burning dead leaves in your backyard. But your neighbours may, now if you lived in a government area, there would be laws limiting or banning such activities to strike a balance; if you're completely free otoh, how do you resolve this with your neighbours? Same for noise. Same for insurance, if you get sick, if your family can't pay the expenses; is it ok for you to suffer?
For me, I love this country. The measure of a government is how it cares for it's people. I have enough freedom to really enjoy my life and enough protections to insure the freedoms of others don't cause problems for me. I admit I'd like to have free-er gun laws but I like the current administration and I suspect our electoral system has something to do with that.
The existence of a supreme being affects the choices people make in their lives. It also affects the way they try to control other people's lives. So yes, if you want to live the life you want without being interfered with, be you Christian, Atheist or Muslim, you pretty much have to convince the people around you.
More to the point, if taking a blood transfusion sentences someone to hell, isn't it your duty to stop them even if it kills them? I mean if your religion genuinely believes this, then this IS your duty to your fellow man. There are religions who do. Conversely, I have heard it stated that we should use all the oil we have as quickly as possible before the rapture comes, so that we won't have anything on our plate, so to speak. So yes, what other people believe IS important.
But you don't think anything of his work on the scientific method? Ok, maybe this guy was a bad example. Not because he didn't contribute, but because of how he contributed. How about "Girolamo Francastoro", he didn't cut anyone up who wasn't dead to begin with?
Not to mention that if you discover anything, it'll help the entirety of humanity for all history. We still give thanks to "Herophilus" for his research and he lived in 280BC.
I hate to spoil the idea but ReactOS has been in alpha for a long time and will be such for a long time to come. It has the downsides of Linux without the benefits of Linux. Since it uses the wine project to assist.
I'd make my own suggestion, my current favourite is OpenSUSE running with xfce. It has a small memory footprint and responds lightning fast; the best part is that it also uses kde and gnome applications properly. If that's not enough, you could always use puppy linux. It's fast and runs everything, after some tweaking.
I don't know about more powerful processor. I suspect that Java's performance is often underrated as on this machine it seldom reaches 2% processor usage. Generally hovering around 1%. A 300mhz processor like the ipaq 1940 would be fast enough to run it fine.
I admit that is the flaw in my plan. However, if one has a sufficiently powerful platform, one doesn't need to use ME. Or one could provide VMs for both. The real issue is that Azureus uses up 98MB of RAM or so. My point is that it could be done and there are miniature computers with 256+MB of RAM and wireless available. They're just very expensive.
Azureus is written in Java. Anything that can run Java can therefore run bittorrent already. The only issue is memory use, you'd need to either optimize Azureus or have a phone with a chunky amount of RAM.
Granted, that implies input and screen space, but it would run.
Why shouldn't they? Even advertisement revenue comes with the expectation that people will read the reviews on the site or magazine or whatever. If people think Gamespot is dishonest, they'll stop going to the site. If the readership drops then so does advertisement revenue, as it becomes more efficient to take out advertisements elsewhere. In short, it's in Gamespot's best interest to be honest.
That's a career killing comment, no wonder they freaked out. If the evidence is stacking up they probably should be fired but it's still not a good idea to post something like this on the internet since he could be assaulted. If he hasn't done anything it would be solely your fault. Besides, he could just be creepy and his actions be misinterpreted. Unless you have actual proof it's irresponsible to say things like that.
Without checking your actual post I can't know what you said but from the snippets you've posted already it sounds like you were spreading chaos around with a big shovel. The internet can be read by anyone, so a good analogy would be you writing this down and nailing it on a tree somewhere. Heck, if I implied corruption and sexual deviancy in my teachers, wrote it down and hammered it on a tree in my suburb, with my name on it. The end result would be pretty much the same as in your case.
Now I live in Australia myself and I love it here. The taxes aren't too bad, crime is minimal and there's an excellent social security net. Try doing this anywhere and you'll get the same result. Especially if you were silly enough to say something like this in your final year.
My actual point is this. They were fighting words, they offended people very badly, as fighting words tend to do. So now they're on the warpath against you. Hardly surprising.
That's true but a great many of the people I know who use utorrent also say that they use an old version, from before it was bought out. Apparently some trackers also reject the newer version on the basis that they don't trust it.
It doesn't look any different from the armour already worn by SWAT teams. The only real difference between this and the normal soldier's armour, to me at least, is the face plate. You could remove that if you were ok with shrapnel in the eyes.
Yes, but my point is that if you have the technology to predict the actions of other players in a given situation. Is it possible to expand this so that it picks up the slack when you're caught by surprise or not paying attention? In essence, predicting what you would do if you could be bothered to do it.
If they're adding a neural network to help them predict actions. If it works, couldn't the system be used to enhance reflexes on the player's side?
Everyone's had an incident when they said "Every time X happens, I want to instantly do y.". Or something more complicated like moving in such a way as to not get flanked. Speeding up repetitive trading or moving activities and so on. Of course, this level of automation might seem too much like giving an unfair advantage. But personally I'd really love a game that helps me play better.
Pure truth. More to the point, even the games they claim to support don't always work properly, I mean, I haven't had much luck so I can only assume other people's experiences differ. If you're willing to spend for the sake of improved linux gaming support. I'd recommend investing in Crossover Office or Parallels. At least once Parallels gets 3.0 out for linux.
Well, Microsoft has billions of dollars and more labor than some of the smaller countries in this world. It's true that these projects are very complicated, but similar things have been done with far fewer resources...
++ Solaris ++ SkyOS ++ ReactOS
It's not so much that these projects are hard but that it's hard to co-ordinate all the people involved to use their resources as effectively as possible. Take for example the story about the resources MS dedicated to their Vista shutdown menu. It's true that the said button is an aspect of the system, but a comparatively negligible one; those 5+ programmers employed for that same period of time could accomplish a great deal. For example, they could have optimized the network stack sufficiently that it may not have been necessary to throttle it when music plays. In essence it's no longer a question of difficulty but a question of efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm hardly going to accept death for the benefit of other people, and it's impressively irritating that other people expect me to do it for them. The previous generation didn't have anything wrong with them, I'd love it if some of them were still around and I'd never begrudge them extra time.
It seems silly to value something simply because we have little of it. I value my life because it's USEFUL, not because it's short.
I have a harder time considering it a "deep" question. It's not my intention to flame but I've heard similar arguments enough times to know that if you ponder any subject long enough, everything seems reasonable.
Personally I consider myself a soulless collection of atoms that just happens to have a stream of conciousness. Beyond the other things in life, my MAIN goal is insuring that stream continues unbroken. I've always thought that was an acceptable definition, therefore; if I suffer any kind of brain damage, that's still me, just changed. But if I get copied, the result is not the original stream and is therefore not me.
My point is that you don't need to believe in a soul to not desire to copy yourself endlessly.
It's brilliant and I agree almost completely. I have one caveat though, I wanted to point out that both Charles Darwin and Isaac Newton had impressive family fortunes and my understanding is that one of the main reasons they had so much time to research was that they could live off this.
In essence I disagree with your parasites analysis, being able to use someone else's money is worth something and that something is paid back as the interest. There's also the fact that I would love to leave my children enough so they won't have to plan how to leave University as fast as possible or obsess over their first job and how they'll work their way up. In essence, if it's THEIR money they're spending, people can do as they wish. It's when you're a King and tax the people for your luxuries that things become more iffy.
The totally free argument is ancient as is the counterpoint. All places have restrictions, it just varies depending on the place's history. The only place that's completely free is a warzone or so deep in the desert/ocean that no government can be stuffed exerting influence. The ultimate problem with living in such a place is that people being to exercise their freedoms, which inevitably impact the people around them.
For example, you might have no problems burning dead leaves in your backyard. But your neighbours may, now if you lived in a government area, there would be laws limiting or banning such activities to strike a balance; if you're completely free otoh, how do you resolve this with your neighbours? Same for noise. Same for insurance, if you get sick, if your family can't pay the expenses; is it ok for you to suffer?
For me, I love this country. The measure of a government is how it cares for it's people. I have enough freedom to really enjoy my life and enough protections to insure the freedoms of others don't cause problems for me. I admit I'd like to have free-er gun laws but I like the current administration and I suspect our electoral system has something to do with that.
The existence of a supreme being affects the choices people make in their lives. It also affects the way they try to control other people's lives. So yes, if you want to live the life you want without being interfered with, be you Christian, Atheist or Muslim, you pretty much have to convince the people around you.
More to the point, if taking a blood transfusion sentences someone to hell, isn't it your duty to stop them even if it kills them? I mean if your religion genuinely believes this, then this IS your duty to your fellow man. There are religions who do. Conversely, I have heard it stated that we should use all the oil we have as quickly as possible before the rapture comes, so that we won't have anything on our plate, so to speak. So yes, what other people believe IS important.
But you don't think anything of his work on the scientific method? Ok, maybe this guy was a bad example. Not because he didn't contribute, but because of how he contributed. How about "Girolamo Francastoro", he didn't cut anyone up who wasn't dead to begin with?
Not to mention that if you discover anything, it'll help the entirety of humanity for all history. We still give thanks to "Herophilus" for his research and he lived in 280BC.
I hate to spoil the idea but ReactOS has been in alpha for a long time and will be such for a long time to come. It has the downsides of Linux without the benefits of Linux. Since it uses the wine project to assist.
I'd make my own suggestion, my current favourite is OpenSUSE running with xfce. It has a small memory footprint and responds lightning fast; the best part is that it also uses kde and gnome applications properly. If that's not enough, you could always use puppy linux. It's fast and runs everything, after some tweaking.
That was a silly mistake, sorry. http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5008/memoryusems8.jpg
Personal experience counts for very little. But I'd like to refer you to this screenshot anyway.
4 torrents open, 27GB of data roughly.
Nevertheless, it was Azureus I was talking about. 0 - 2% processor usage but a massive memory sink.
I do review games sometimes and I think your idea is pretty brilliant, can I use it?
I don't know about more powerful processor. I suspect that Java's performance is often underrated as on this machine it seldom reaches 2% processor usage. Generally hovering around 1%. A 300mhz processor like the ipaq 1940 would be fast enough to run it fine.
Yeah, it's not perfect but it's pretty close.
I admit that is the flaw in my plan. However, if one has a sufficiently powerful platform, one doesn't need to use ME. Or one could provide VMs for both. The real issue is that Azureus uses up 98MB of RAM or so. My point is that it could be done and there are miniature computers with 256+MB of RAM and wireless available. They're just very expensive.
Azureus is written in Java. Anything that can run Java can therefore run bittorrent already. The only issue is memory use, you'd need to either optimize Azureus or have a phone with a chunky amount of RAM.
Granted, that implies input and screen space, but it would run.
Why shouldn't they? Even advertisement revenue comes with the expectation that people will read the reviews on the site or magazine or whatever. If people think Gamespot is dishonest, they'll stop going to the site. If the readership drops then so does advertisement revenue, as it becomes more efficient to take out advertisements elsewhere. In short, it's in Gamespot's best interest to be honest.
I like the eye candy. Is that so strange? It helps make the whole "using the computer" experience nicer.
That's a career killing comment, no wonder they freaked out. If the evidence is stacking up they probably should be fired but it's still not a good idea to post something like this on the internet since he could be assaulted. If he hasn't done anything it would be solely your fault. Besides, he could just be creepy and his actions be misinterpreted. Unless you have actual proof it's irresponsible to say things like that.
Without checking your actual post I can't know what you said but from the snippets you've posted already it sounds like you were spreading chaos around with a big shovel. The internet can be read by anyone, so a good analogy would be you writing this down and nailing it on a tree somewhere. Heck, if I implied corruption and sexual deviancy in my teachers, wrote it down and hammered it on a tree in my suburb, with my name on it. The end result would be pretty much the same as in your case.
Now I live in Australia myself and I love it here. The taxes aren't too bad, crime is minimal and there's an excellent social security net. Try doing this anywhere and you'll get the same result. Especially if you were silly enough to say something like this in your final year.
My actual point is this. They were fighting words, they offended people very badly, as fighting words tend to do. So now they're on the warpath against you. Hardly surprising.
That's true but a great many of the people I know who use utorrent also say that they use an old version, from before it was bought out. Apparently some trackers also reject the newer version on the basis that they don't trust it.
It doesn't look any different from the armour already worn by SWAT teams. The only real difference between this and the normal soldier's armour, to me at least, is the face plate. You could remove that if you were ok with shrapnel in the eyes.
Yes, but my point is that if you have the technology to predict the actions of other players in a given situation. Is it possible to expand this so that it picks up the slack when you're caught by surprise or not paying attention? In essence, predicting what you would do if you could be bothered to do it.
If they're adding a neural network to help them predict actions. If it works, couldn't the system be used to enhance reflexes on the player's side?
Everyone's had an incident when they said "Every time X happens, I want to instantly do y.". Or something more complicated like moving in such a way as to not get flanked. Speeding up repetitive trading or moving activities and so on. Of course, this level of automation might seem too much like giving an unfair advantage. But personally I'd really love a game that helps me play better.
Pure truth. More to the point, even the games they claim to support don't always work properly, I mean, I haven't had much luck so I can only assume other people's experiences differ. If you're willing to spend for the sake of improved linux gaming support. I'd recommend investing in Crossover Office or Parallels. At least once Parallels gets 3.0 out for linux.
Well, Microsoft has billions of dollars and more labor than some of the smaller countries in this world. It's true that these projects are very complicated, but similar things have been done with far fewer resources...
++ Solaris
++ SkyOS
++ ReactOS
It's not so much that these projects are hard but that it's hard to co-ordinate all the people involved to use their resources as effectively as possible. Take for example the story about the resources MS dedicated to their Vista shutdown menu. It's true that the said button is an aspect of the system, but a comparatively negligible one; those 5+ programmers employed for that same period of time could accomplish a great deal. For example, they could have optimized the network stack sufficiently that it may not have been necessary to throttle it when music plays. In essence it's no longer a question of difficulty but a question of efficiency.