> I'd find the short story, but there was something a sci-fi writer wrote about aliens being > offended that meat could be intelligent so the alien scientists decided to cover up what > they found on earth and took it off the map.
> this wouldn't be the first time Apple has gone out of it's way to punish its customers for preemptive announcements about Apples products made by vendors.
Eh, I think we're treading on fundamental philosophical differences at this point. I would posit (but not be able to prove) that there are far, far fewer of the far-out 'kill the infidel at any cost' lot milling around out there, and a vast bulk of ordinary people who are radicalized by their circumstances. On the basis of that assumption, I come to the conclusion that improving those circumstances (through economic aid, but first and foremost by pulling up our occupation and certainly NOT by carpet-bombing their cities) is the path of least resistance to dismantling the army that is massing against us. I strongly suspect that you disagree with my original assumption, so of course my thoughts about a solution probably sound ridiculous to you.
Another slashdotter described the same phenomenon pretty well here.
In any event, I think this is a good place to leave this thread. Thanks for a civil discussion. =)
> convincing a significant number of Westerners (in particular, "progressives") that political Islam has to go.
I disagree. I am a progressive liberal as are most of my friends, and I am quite sure that none of us would disagree with that statement. This false dichotomy of "the right wants to stop violent fundamentalists, the left doesn't" is an invention of the corporate media and the political far right (but I repeat myself). We _all_ want to stop them by the most efficient means we can come up with.
> My answer is that we level Iran's cities, one by one, until Iran capitulates.
And this is where we disagree: on the methods. For starters, I wouldn't be willing to accept a huge number of civilian casualties in order to attack the machinery of what you call political Islam. To the extent that military action is called for, precision would be a lot more ethical _and effective_ than scorched earth. Our Rangers and Seals can sure as hell take out a terrorist enclave before they even know which way is up, and not even wake up the next door neighbors.
More pressingly, scorched earth isn't even going to work, and the reason why is right their in your statement "until Iran capitulates". Take a closer look at the political Islam that we're fighting. Casualties aren't going to make them give up, hell, they're blowing themselves up! All you're going to do by taking out mostly moderate cities is stir up people who wouldn't have otherwise been a problem, and suddenly you have 50 times as many terrorists to deal with. That, incidentally, is exactly why we're having the problems in Iraq that we are.
> We should have leveled Iraq's cities, one by one, until they capitulated.
Same objections as above, with the additional proviso that Iraq DID capitulate. All Saddam ever wanted was to keep his little despotic regime intact, and he would have done (and did do) anything we told him to. He had no WMDs. There were inspectors crawling all over Iraq that had to be pulled out before the bombing began.
> You know, they say the definition of insanity is doing the > same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
And Bartcop's second law says that if someone makes a "mistake" that makes them a whole heap of money, then they will make the same "mistake" again and again and again. They keep making new protection scheme revisions, the content providers keep buying in and hardware manufacturers keep upgrading.
These protection schemes aren't a failure as you seem to think. They're accomplishing exactly what they're intended for.
> We must put a decisive end to the Jihad ideology. Political Islam must go.
Quite agree. How do you propose we do that? Additionally, how does the invasion and occupation of Iraq, at the time a secular dictatorship, advance that goal?
> Iraq has something to do with US national security?
Good god yes. We're spending all our money (and a lot of China and Japan's) on Iraq when we could be inspecting cargo containers, securing our borders, training and deploying domestic security forces as the above poster suggests, or the real U.S. national security golden ring, getting ourselves off of mid-east oil. We've broken our military in Iraq to the point that they would be hard pressed to respond to a genuine threat to U.S. national security. We've overtaxed our reservists to the point that we can't even deal with comparatively mundane threats like wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters. Our actions in Iraq have radicalized previously moderate peoples to join various terrorist organizations in unprecedented numbers. We've alienated our allies, which weakens us militarily and economically.
Should I go on?
Iraq has everything to do with U.S. national security, just not the way the administration says it does.
> Big disk array full of drives, all blinking somewhat in unison, is what I'm trying to say.
-nod- I've got one of those 4-in-3 SATA drive enclosure bays, and each drive sled has a LED that changes from green to red when it's being accessed. I arranged the disks so that their offset in the raid 5 array is the same as their physical location in the chassis, so on long contiguous operations the LEDs blink rapidly in a circular sequence. It's worth twice what I paid.
> I'm about to start my 4th year at my university doing CS, and I don't know of anyone else in my major who knows what a breakpoint is or how to use them
What University would that be ?
(Incidentally, the perfect answer would be "A major one".)
Commercial software vendors will make their apps available on Linux when more users migrate to the platform. More users will migrate to the platform when the apps they need are available. Chicken. Egg.
WINE short-circuits the dependency loop by allowing people who still need this or that Win32 app to migrate to Linux if they want to.
-shrug- No disrespect. I like, use and recommend to others your driver. It's by far the most complete of the many wireless ethernet drivers I've used with Linux.
Granted, when there's a fully free-software driver that will run my card, even if it isn't as complete, I'll be switching to it. But I hope you don't take that as an attempt to diminish the extremely valuable work you do.
Those.uu files are binary objects stored as text, and they make up the majority of the driver. This same binary driver is also used by some of the BSDs, with a different open-source shim.
> The module in question is found here. (slow to load)
Ah, so the flaw is in the open source shim part. Fooey. =/
As an aside, and as I suspect you might already know, there is an effort to replace the binary-only part of that driver with Free software, and the Madwifi people have cooperated as much as they're able. They even host the development in their own repository:
While I echo your congratulations on a good response to this bug, I should point out that the driver in question is MadWifi; it's mostly closed source.
This suit is silly and will probably be thrown out. The best result I can hope for is that hopefully in the future a few of the people bitten by this will be a bit more wary of marketing promises in general and Microsoft in particular.
Slashdot Mirror
> uh oh, your PC stopped booting? congratulations, you iPod just did too.
Oh well, off to the Apple store to buy a new computer, a new iPod, and then to iTunes to buy all my music again...
Sorry, what was the downside of this for Apple?
> I dread to think how many other terms and procedures have been 'normalised' by government naming and spin.
Look up "rendering"; then throw out all the articles about graphics.
> I'd find the short story, but there was something a sci-fi writer wrote about aliens being
> offended that meat could be intelligent so the alien scientists decided to cover up what
> they found on earth and took it off the map.
http://www.setileague.org/articles/meat.htm
> I see that you have that talent.
So does the ca. 2000 U.S. Supreme Court. At least he's in good company.
> this wouldn't be the first time Apple has gone out of it's way to punish its customers for preemptive announcements about Apples products made by vendors.
Fixed.
> Like some sort of zombie lizard... robot.
If they could somehow make it a ninja and/or a pirate, they could win at the Internet. (Without even playing!)
Eh, I think we're treading on fundamental philosophical differences at this point. I would posit (but not be able to prove) that there are far, far fewer of the far-out 'kill the infidel at any cost' lot milling around out there, and a vast bulk of ordinary people who are radicalized by their circumstances. On the basis of that assumption, I come to the conclusion that improving those circumstances (through economic aid, but first and foremost by pulling up our occupation and certainly NOT by carpet-bombing their cities) is the path of least resistance to dismantling the army that is massing against us. I strongly suspect that you disagree with my original assumption, so of course my thoughts about a solution probably sound ridiculous to you.
Another slashdotter described the same phenomenon pretty well here.
In any event, I think this is a good place to leave this thread. Thanks for a civil discussion. =)
> convincing a significant number of Westerners (in particular, "progressives") that political Islam has to go.
I disagree. I am a progressive liberal as are most of my friends, and I am quite sure that none of us would disagree with that statement. This false dichotomy of "the right wants to stop violent fundamentalists, the left doesn't" is an invention of the corporate media and the political far right (but I repeat myself). We _all_ want to stop them by the most efficient means we can come up with.
> My answer is that we level Iran's cities, one by one, until Iran capitulates.
And this is where we disagree: on the methods. For starters, I wouldn't be willing to accept a huge number of civilian casualties in order to attack the machinery of what you call political Islam. To the extent that military action is called for, precision would be a lot more ethical _and effective_ than scorched earth. Our Rangers and Seals can sure as hell take out a terrorist enclave before they even know which way is up, and not even wake up the next door neighbors.
More pressingly, scorched earth isn't even going to work, and the reason why is right their in your statement "until Iran capitulates". Take a closer look at the political Islam that we're fighting. Casualties aren't going to make them give up, hell, they're blowing themselves up! All you're going to do by taking out mostly moderate cities is stir up people who wouldn't have otherwise been a problem, and suddenly you have 50 times as many terrorists to deal with. That, incidentally, is exactly why we're having the problems in Iraq that we are.
> We should have leveled Iraq's cities, one by one, until they capitulated.
Same objections as above, with the additional proviso that Iraq DID capitulate. All Saddam ever wanted was to keep his little despotic regime intact, and he would have done (and did do) anything we told him to. He had no WMDs. There were inspectors crawling all over Iraq that had to be pulled out before the bombing began.
> You know, they say the definition of insanity is doing the
> same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
And Bartcop's second law says that if someone makes a "mistake" that makes them a whole heap of money, then they will make the same "mistake" again and again and again. They keep making new protection scheme revisions, the content providers keep buying in and hardware manufacturers keep upgrading.
These protection schemes aren't a failure as you seem to think. They're accomplishing exactly what they're intended for.
> We must put a decisive end to the Jihad ideology. Political Islam must go.
Quite agree. How do you propose we do that? Additionally, how does the invasion and occupation of Iraq, at the time a secular dictatorship, advance that goal?
> Iraq has something to do with US national security?
Good god yes. We're spending all our money (and a lot of China and Japan's) on Iraq when we could be inspecting cargo containers, securing our borders, training and deploying domestic security forces as the above poster suggests, or the real U.S. national security golden ring, getting ourselves off of mid-east oil. We've broken our military in Iraq to the point that they would be hard pressed to respond to a genuine threat to U.S. national security. We've overtaxed our reservists to the point that we can't even deal with comparatively mundane threats like wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters. Our actions in Iraq have radicalized previously moderate peoples to join various terrorist organizations in unprecedented numbers. We've alienated our allies, which weakens us militarily and economically.
Should I go on?
Iraq has everything to do with U.S. national security, just not the way the administration says it does.
> That's a trillion dollars a year.
Or approximately 0.23% of what we have spent so far in Iraq. Sounds like a winner to me.
> Big disk array full of drives, all blinking somewhat in unison, is what I'm trying to say.
-nod- I've got one of those 4-in-3 SATA drive enclosure bays, and each drive sled has a LED that changes from green to red when it's being accessed. I arranged the disks so that their offset in the raid 5 array is the same as their physical location in the chassis, so on long contiguous operations the LEDs blink rapidly in a circular sequence. It's worth twice what I paid.
> Hasn't Bush heard of the Supreme Court?
You mean the "activist judges"?
> I'm about to start my 4th year at my university doing CS, and I don't know of anyone else in my major who knows what a breakpoint is or how to use them
What University would that be ?
(Incidentally, the perfect answer would be "A major one".)
> I see you've never heard of the saying "The Chicken is the Egg."
You are correct. Care to elaborate?
Commercial software vendors will make their apps available on Linux when more users migrate to the platform.
More users will migrate to the platform when the apps they need are available.
Chicken.
Egg.
WINE short-circuits the dependency loop by allowing people who still need this or that Win32 app to migrate to Linux if they want to.
> So the binary HAL layer is less than half of my driver
root@Callooh ~ =) # lsmod | grep ^ath
ath_rate_sample 11776 1
ath_pci 87456 0
ath_hal 189584 3 ath_rate_sample,ath_pci
root@Callooh ~ =) #
-shrug- No disrespect. I like, use and recommend to others your driver. It's by far the most complete of the many wireless ethernet drivers I've used with Linux.
Granted, when there's a fully free-software driver that will run my card, even if it isn't as complete, I'll be switching to it. But I hope you don't take that as an attempt to diminish the extremely valuable work you do.
> MadWiFi source code can be found here.
.uu files are binary objects stored as text, and they make up the majority of the driver. This same binary driver is also used by some of the BSDs, with a different open-source shim.
p enhal
Or rather, a small open-source Linux compatibility shim around the actual, binary only driver.
Look further into that link you pasted:
http://madwifi.org/browser/trunk/hal/public
Those
> The module in question is found here. (slow to load)
Ah, so the flaw is in the open source shim part. Fooey. =/
As an aside, and as I suspect you might already know, there is an effort to replace the binary-only part of that driver with Free software, and the Madwifi people have cooperated as much as they're able. They even host the development in their own repository:
http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/madwifi-old-o
Cheers!
While I echo your congratulations on a good response to this bug, I should point out that the driver in question is MadWifi; it's mostly closed source.
That's the guy's name, you ninnyhammer.
> keeping my recipe secret, but that's the price you pay for making sure you'll never be troubled by competition.
Fixed.
> To cut down on the solar energy we receive, and counter global warming,
> could we put a big mirror at the Lagrange point between here and the sun?
Simpsons did it!
This suit is silly and will probably be thrown out. The best result I can hope for is that hopefully in the future a few of the people bitten by this will be a bit more wary of marketing promises in general and Microsoft in particular.
> Having ruled out ATI and Nvidia, that would be who, exactly?
Intel.
http://intellinuxgraphics.org/