One of the reasons I left linux was that I had the drivers for three different peripherals that used to work stop building against new kernel releases: my webcam (qc-usb.sourceforge.net), my winCE PDA, and the remote for my TV card (via lirc).
The DVDA release of REM's best of album was just an upsample of the CD version. It took quite a while before anyone noticed (and only because they happened to look at the frequency graph on a computer, not by hearing it).
On my original (dual-core) transformer, I find system performance suffers noticeably if I'm torrenting in the background. Niche use case maybe, but I do it fairly often, and it seems like more cores should be able to help with that.
If you're staying in university accommodation, and they're in a monopoly position as your internet provider, then they have an obligation (moral and possibly legal) to provide an equivalent service to what you'd get from a commercial ISP in private housing.
Not at all. There's nothing inevitable or deterministic in your suggestion. The secondary market isn't relevant to all the participants of the primary round-robin system. Most participants will use the hard drive they got for their own projects (that's why they joined the round-robin queue in the first place). A small fraction only will decide to defer their projects, and sell their drive on a secondary market.
Only very briefly. Then the bureaucrats responsible for running the system, or the guys driving the van that delivers them, will realise that they can make life much better for themselves by "losing" half the supply and selling it on the secondary market. Go look at the USSR for what happens when you try and run a society on something like round-robin.
The state ensures that all the population is able to obtain access to goods, and that is exactly as fair and legitimate as letting people die in the streets?
Yup. It ultimately depends on how you define fairness - whether the fair way to get more resources is to work for them, or to have more children and have the government confiscate them for you.
Finally, if *survival* is at issue, I'd say that rationing is a lot more rational than a free market alternative, irrespective of fairness, welfare or legitimacy.
You'd have to look at the results, and I'm not aware of any proper studies on this. Maybe a free-market system would have let more people starve initially, but also mean the people most vital to the war effort were better-fed and thus able to work harder, ending the war sooner and thus saving more lives overall.
If they caused performance or reliability issues like random freezes/crashes, people would scream and complain until those problems were fixed -- just like any other code.
Ten years of flash suggests that's not entirely reliable.
Something I just can't help wonder is... Do you eat meat? Have you thought through the ethics of keeping animals confined for the single purpose of killing them and eating them?
I see nothing inherently wrong with this (I have plenty of problems with specific implementations). I care about animal suffering, but "purpose" is meaningless, and there's no reason the life of a meat animal has to involve any more suffering or cruelty than a wild one.
It's a matter of removing animals that causes problems with our way of life as well as gathering meat. I have no wish to bring extra suffering to the animals I hunt just because I don't use the correct tools for the job.
I have no problem with killing animals as necessary, but following this argument through to its conclusion probably does mean using aeroplanes, or whatever gets the job done most efficiently. Primitive hunting as still practised in parts of Africa is possibly the cruellest way to die outside of deliberate torture (the animal is literally run to death, chased for ~3 days unable to stop or rest until it's exhausted enough to kill; of those which escape, many will die from the exertion shortly after). A skilled hunter, bringing down the animal with one shot before it's even aware of him/her? I have no problem with that. But as soon as you inflict any extra suffering in the interests of sport, that's wrong - and I suspect even the best of modern hunting tactics causes more of that, on average, than the most efficient possible way of doing the necessary killing.
When the Tony Martin(?) case first came up, a policeman I know gave a simple prediction: If the burglars were shot in the front he'll go free, if they were shot in the back he'll be convicted.
In space, everyone knows where everyone is (scattering sensors around is cheap, and the second law of thermodynamics means there's no way to hide unless you know which direction your enemy's looking from), and everyone can kill everyone else quite easily. Just the velocities involved mean an interstellar ship is a missile (and probably one that can devastate planetary ecosystems); there is no defense other than to strike first, no way to meaningfully armour a ship (even counter-missiles are impractical due to conservation of momentum), and honestly, when it comes to war, no reason to even have ships at all - just launch missiles directly from whatever your bases are.
If we survive long enough as a race to have interstellar travel, I predict people living on artificial habitats inside gas giants and/or stars, the location/flight-plan of each a closely guarded secret (and probably communicating/trading only by meeting on neutral ground), since that seems like the only place you could hide. If you're out in the open, any idiot with a grudge can wipe out your civilization.
Since I got my Transformer I never carry my netbook around any more - a tablet with a proper keyboard is good enough for everything I used to use it for. Why carry two devices when you can make one do both functions?
I don't believe they're selling more, but I believe they're making a better product. That was the line apple fanboys were giving us throughout the 90s.
Most people who went into tech don't make as much as Zuck. I suspect top scientists (even the average nobel prize winner is only the best in a given year - Zuckerberg has done better than that) make similar money.
What is gun culture / military about, if not killing people (or at least animals)? I can appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into handmade guns, but that doesn't seem to be what most gun nuts are about. Being able to aim steadily at a target is an interesting skill in the same way as driving or carpentry (though with less to show for it at the end), but guns are disproportionately popular for that to be what it's about.
As a brit I've taken to reading TIME. The writing seems to be better than our own magazines, and it's nice to have something without the focus on local politics and crime.
One of the interesting things about quantum computing is that it's fundamentally impossible to copy a qbit (hmm, wait until hollywood hears about that). So the cloud service really couldn't have logged what it sent back to you before it sent it.
More to the point, I suspect this proposal works by sending entangled qbits into the service, keeping the corresponding pairs, and getting back something that can only be turned into your answer by combining it with what you kept. This isn't the same as what you're talking about - the client literally just stores a set of bits and combines them at the end, like an xor. So it's like that story from a few months ago with an encrypted database that could run queries on its data without decrypting it, but better in that a) it works for free, for any computation, you don't have to design your database for it b) it's quantum encryption and thus provably unbreakable
New lines (the channel one and this one) are being built to European standards. Given how long it would take to cycle through replacing all the bridges, I think that's probably the best they can do.
Surely it can't be that simple, or I could make a copy of Apache Harmony, randomly include one bit of OpenJDK, declare it a derived work and thus covered by the OpenJDK patent license? Have I missed something?
On the other hand, the fact that there is a an officially GPL'd version of official Java out there may well mean that in the long term, Java will be fine.
Only if you mean the long term after their patents have expired. They've refused to grant a license for apache's Java implementation, and one can only assume they must have some level of control over "Open" JDK (otherwise I take openjdk, modify it by removing all of the code and replacing it with apache harmony, and done).
Slashdot Mirror
if it wasn't for Ubuntu, I would be running OSX
Would that be any different?
One of the reasons I left linux was that I had the drivers for three different peripherals that used to work stop building against new kernel releases: my webcam (qc-usb.sourceforge.net), my winCE PDA, and the remote for my TV card (via lirc).
Actually, interestingly enough you can't legally consent to be punched in the face (at least in my country).
The DVDA release of REM's best of album was just an upsample of the CD version. It took quite a while before anyone noticed (and only because they happened to look at the frequency graph on a computer, not by hearing it).
(amusing side note: I must've been the first person ever to decode a 24-bit flac with ffmpeg, since I had to fix a (trivial) bug to do so).
On my original (dual-core) transformer, I find system performance suffers noticeably if I'm torrenting in the background. Niche use case maybe, but I do it fairly often, and it seems like more cores should be able to help with that.
If you're staying in university accommodation, and they're in a monopoly position as your internet provider, then they have an obligation (moral and possibly legal) to provide an equivalent service to what you'd get from a commercial ISP in private housing.
Not at all. There's nothing inevitable or deterministic in your suggestion. The secondary market isn't relevant to all the participants of the primary round-robin system. Most participants will use the hard drive they got for their own projects (that's why they joined the round-robin queue in the first place). A small fraction only will decide to defer their projects, and sell their drive on a secondary market.
Only very briefly. Then the bureaucrats responsible for running the system, or the guys driving the van that delivers them, will realise that they can make life much better for themselves by "losing" half the supply and selling it on the secondary market. Go look at the USSR for what happens when you try and run a society on something like round-robin.
The state ensures that all the population is able to obtain access to goods, and that is exactly as fair and legitimate as letting people die in the streets?
Yup. It ultimately depends on how you define fairness - whether the fair way to get more resources is to work for them, or to have more children and have the government confiscate them for you.
Finally, if *survival* is at issue, I'd say that rationing is a lot more rational than a free market alternative, irrespective of fairness, welfare or legitimacy.
You'd have to look at the results, and I'm not aware of any proper studies on this. Maybe a free-market system would have let more people starve initially, but also mean the people most vital to the war effort were better-fed and thus able to work harder, ending the war sooner and thus saving more lives overall.
If they caused performance or reliability issues like random freezes/crashes, people would scream and complain until those problems were fixed -- just like any other code.
Ten years of flash suggests that's not entirely reliable.
Something I just can't help wonder is... Do you eat meat? Have you thought through the ethics of keeping animals confined for the single purpose of killing them and eating them?
I see nothing inherently wrong with this (I have plenty of problems with specific implementations). I care about animal suffering, but "purpose" is meaningless, and there's no reason the life of a meat animal has to involve any more suffering or cruelty than a wild one.
It's a matter of removing animals that causes problems with our way of life as well as gathering meat. I have no wish to bring extra suffering to the animals I hunt just because I don't use the correct tools for the job.
I have no problem with killing animals as necessary, but following this argument through to its conclusion probably does mean using aeroplanes, or whatever gets the job done most efficiently. Primitive hunting as still practised in parts of Africa is possibly the cruellest way to die outside of deliberate torture (the animal is literally run to death, chased for ~3 days unable to stop or rest until it's exhausted enough to kill; of those which escape, many will die from the exertion shortly after). A skilled hunter, bringing down the animal with one shot before it's even aware of him/her? I have no problem with that. But as soon as you inflict any extra suffering in the interests of sport, that's wrong - and I suspect even the best of modern hunting tactics causes more of that, on average, than the most efficient possible way of doing the necessary killing.
When the Tony Martin(?) case first came up, a policeman I know gave a simple prediction: If the burglars were shot in the front he'll go free, if they were shot in the back he'll be convicted.
If we survive long enough as a race to have interstellar travel, I predict people living on artificial habitats inside gas giants and/or stars, the location/flight-plan of each a closely guarded secret (and probably communicating/trading only by meeting on neutral ground), since that seems like the only place you could hide. If you're out in the open, any idiot with a grudge can wipe out your civilization.
Since I got my Transformer I never carry my netbook around any more - a tablet with a proper keyboard is good enough for everything I used to use it for. Why carry two devices when you can make one do both functions?
I don't believe they're selling more, but I believe they're making a better product. That was the line apple fanboys were giving us throughout the 90s.
I got two CRTs that do that resolution for $15 from my old school, six years ago (they were "upgrading" to flatscreens).
Um... yes? The ladies will be happy with that.
Most people who went into tech don't make as much as Zuck. I suspect top scientists (even the average nobel prize winner is only the best in a given year - Zuckerberg has done better than that) make similar money.
If being able to hit something 600km away is all a carrier is good for, shouldn't missiles have made them obsolete?
What is gun culture / military about, if not killing people (or at least animals)? I can appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into handmade guns, but that doesn't seem to be what most gun nuts are about. Being able to aim steadily at a target is an interesting skill in the same way as driving or carpentry (though with less to show for it at the end), but guns are disproportionately popular for that to be what it's about.
As a brit I've taken to reading TIME. The writing seems to be better than our own magazines, and it's nice to have something without the focus on local politics and crime.
More to the point, I suspect this proposal works by sending entangled qbits into the service, keeping the corresponding pairs, and getting back something that can only be turned into your answer by combining it with what you kept. This isn't the same as what you're talking about - the client literally just stores a set of bits and combines them at the end, like an xor. So it's like that story from a few months ago with an encrypted database that could run queries on its data without decrypting it, but better in that a) it works for free, for any computation, you don't have to design your database for it b) it's quantum encryption and thus provably unbreakable
You're supposed to use WebDAV for that. It's not as nice and easy as sftp, but it does work.
New lines (the channel one and this one) are being built to European standards. Given how long it would take to cycle through replacing all the bridges, I think that's probably the best they can do.
Surely it can't be that simple, or I could make a copy of Apache Harmony, randomly include one bit of OpenJDK, declare it a derived work and thus covered by the OpenJDK patent license? Have I missed something?
On the other hand, the fact that there is a an officially GPL'd version of official Java out there may well mean that in the long term, Java will be fine.
Only if you mean the long term after their patents have expired. They've refused to grant a license for apache's Java implementation, and one can only assume they must have some level of control over "Open" JDK (otherwise I take openjdk, modify it by removing all of the code and replacing it with apache harmony, and done).