LoL, I was terrified the first time I saw Guru Meditation Mode. I thought I had broken my computer forever... that being said, there is no #42 (maybe a funny Douglas Adams reference?).
Thank you. You are awesome! I like the compile time and parameter passing configuration options to both be available. You are smart and doing it right. Keep on keeping on.:)
If crash dumps are really not possible, how about a plain 'ol text file in the root directory containing the reason for the crash/panic?
It is easily possible to do what you want. Trivially so... so why isn't it done? There is an answer to that question my friend and the answer is this:
A kernel will panic when it detects that the environment it is running in is not the same environment it thinks it is running in. What this means is that the kernel can no longer be certain of anything, up to and including whether or not it can write coherently to a file system. Rather than potentially trashing your file system, the kernel just prints to the screen as nothing can be damaged by that... but even that is dangerous. What the kernel thinks is the screen may not actually be the screen anymore.
In other words, once there is corruption in the kernel's environment, all bets are off and nothing is guaranteed, not even writing an error message to the screen. Writing coherently to a file system is actually a fairly complex event and is extremely dangerous in this situation.
Why should I be taxed differently because my significant other and I decided to sign a piece of paper?
Very valid questions. I am not sure that I can answer them but perhaps I can provide some perspective:
It is in society's interest to promote the creation of new members of society. The majority of children are created through a male and a female having sexual intercourse.
Society has an interest in the child being reared in a secure environment, hopefully one that is positive and nurturing so that the child becomes a healthy and socially well-adjusted adult.
One of the methods accepted by society at large for encouraging the creation of children and providing for their well-being while becoming adults is to formalize what a "family" means in its most basic sense. Marriage is a tool for "encouraging" the maintenance of this familial construct.
It is not surprising that people are resistant to swapping out portions of this construct for others, such as artificial insemination, gay marriage, adoption, etc. Some swaps have some very persuasive arguments for why they negate the entire concept of marriage as a tool for family creation and social stability (gay marriage), others do not, (artificial insemination, adoption).
For myself, I am generally for what is known as traditional marriage. I do not really care what gay or childless couples do (not that they are equivalent) or what benefits they can accrue by "aping" traditional marriage. All of these people who are yelling and screaming about it all just seem absurd to me. Keep your eyes on your own business and stop being jealous or envious that someone else might have it "as good as you".
The militant gay people think they have the right to tell other people what moral values they have to have.
LOL. You sound like one of the Christians who complain about persecution. I mean really? I bet if you let the gay people alone, they would leave you alone. You do not see Prop 8 as actually doing something TO gay people?
Look, I am not gay or in California (but I repeat myself) so in this particular instance, I have no horse in the race. I am just calling out silliness when I see it. When you claim that when gays defend themselves against an attack, Prop 8 in this case, they are forcing their morals on you, I just have to laugh at the absurdity of the claim. It is ludicrous.
I don't know about you, I don't know which groups I might be heading in 6 years, or 60 for that matter... best to just stop voting, donating money or having opinions that someone somewhere might find offensive... unless that too is considered offensive.
You can be a coward if you want... or you can stand behind what you believe in. If you find that what you believe is antithetical to all humans being treated equally under the law, then do not be surprised when that comes back and bites you.
You seem to think that this is about someone just having a view that is offensive to some people. It is absolutely NOT about that. It is about treating people unequally. That may have been the norm since forever; however, treating people unequally is treating people unequally. Expect this type of thing to come up more often in ways other than just civil rights, suffrage, or gay marriage. Anywhere that you see people being treated unequally is going to be a flashpoint sooner or later. If you support unequal treatment, then you will find yourself on the wrong end of these types of actions.
Then at least acknowledge that the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry when Eich had (past tense) done something that some might see as intolerant, the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done...
Hm. The response was worse than what he had done...
So on one hand, we have someone trying to deny equal rights to hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people... versus thousands (tens? hundreds?) of people trying to make one person lose their job.
In a numbers games, millions vs one, it is pretty clear which is worse. In a losing rights versus losing a job situation, i think it is pretty clear which is worse.
... and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.
You know what? If you are going to advocate, not just with words, making a certain type of citizen have fewer rights than another type of citizen, I am going to go with the idea that you should feel "chilled" about this precedent (not prescient).
But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.
This is not a free speech issue. It is about actions. The man tried to take rights away from certain people. That is NOT speech; otherwise, I could contribute time and money to having the government create a tax rate of 80% against all people who go by the handle of Kielistic and my actions would be called free speech.:)
I am not a lesbian (especially since I am a man), but I am not gay either.
I do not see this situation as intolerance of Eich. I see it as a self preservation move by gays and lesbians and those who care about what gays and lesbians experience.
In short, Eich was advocating removing rights from certain people and he personally donated time and money to make sure that happened. In other words, he fired the first shot. Of course the other side will shoot back, defend themselves, or otherwise remove the threat. That is exactly what happened.
For myself, I really do not care what other people do as long as it does not take anything away from others, hurt others, and is done with consent if it involves others. I find myself offended by Eich's actions because he was actively seeking to take something away from others.
I did not support the boycott but I am not offended by it either. It seemed a reasonable reaction to me even though it offends my basic sensibilities.
As evidenced, zebras did evolve due to considerable reasons, as their short hair made them rather specific targets for the flies above many other animals.
A person would think it would be "cheaper" in an evolutionary sense to evolve slightly longer hair instead of stripes. But meh, I am not an evolutionary biologist.
Scenario 3 works for me. I do not need their poisonous creed. In 1992, the Internet was useful to me. It is arguably MORE useful to me now but I can survive quite happily with what was available in 1992. I do not need a fully commercialized internet but they need my money. *I am the one in charge here. I have the decision of life or death for these scumbag parasites. There is no negotiation on my part. They can try to negotiate with me if they would like.
*I being myself, yourself, and everyone else who uses their brain and accesses the Internet from time to time.
Today, more and more websites are designed in a such a way that disabling Javascript breaks them completely -- you literally get nothing but a blank page.
That's okay. I just go elsewhere for the information then... or decide that I really didn't need/want to see it anyways. NoScript puts the control in MY hands where it belongs.
Programming isn't hard because we made it so, it's hard because it is *intrinsically* hard. No amount of training wheels is going to make complex programming significantly easier.
Um, this guy is NOT designing training wheels. He is designing jet engines. Your attitude and point of view is counter-productive.:(
Ok fine.... but did anyone take the time to prove that peanut butter does not cause autism? Sure, we all believed it was vaccines but now we are pretty sure it is peanut butter. Where are the studies?!;)
If the ignition turns to the "lock" position, you will not be steering at all no matter how hard you turn the wheel. Perhaps that is why people are dying, not because power steering and power brakes are no longer available.
There is an absurdly strong Puritan ethic running through America. You must work hard and feel pain to be close to god. Pleasures are STRICTLY forbidden. Leisure time is the work of the devil.
When there is no work to be had, the ovens of Nazi Germany will be brought back into use to deal with those evil, lazy, shiftless people. The prisons are already overflowing from this outlook. There will absolutely need to be a Final Solution.
When will it occur? I have no idea. It is coming though.
We need access to space, AI, roboticized labor, and the endless energy the sun is currently wasting as it goes out into space largely untapped - and everything that makes those things come faster are good things.
Unfortunately, there is no "we". Your existence is suffered right now merely as a convenience. Soon, you will not be needed or wanted at all. Enjoy the ovens as the robots push your body into it to be turned to ash. The Final Solution indeed.
It's not "wackos" that are preventing the waste being used, it is the cost. What people like you don't understand is just because on paper you can build some cool piece of technology to deal with it doesn't mean it makes commercial sense to do so.... If you can find someone willing to invest tens of billions in building one of these things and getting regulatory approval/certification, and taking on the risk of some problem developing during its lifetime that costs a fortune to fix or writes it off... Well, go ahead and build one.
Wikipedia seems to agree with you somewhat about the economics; but I would have to ask if the economics of waste disposal are being factored into non-breeder reactors. I suspect it is not and for political "wacko" reasons.
Capitalism is free market, all the player are free to interact as they please, might it be by competing or by cooperating.
No. Once they start cooperating, it is no longer Capitalism. Capitalism is defined by competition. Freedom of interaction is something you are adding... incorrectly I might add.
... police officers are also there to protect you from those who might want to take your money or otherwise commit a crime against you.
No. No they are not. They are there to fill out the paperwork concerning your dead body. They have no requirement to actually protect you AND you have very few legal options to protect yourself.
I do not think you understand. I DO NOT WANT A REVOLUTION. I am saying that I am seeing it as inevitable. There is nothing you or I can do to stop it.
Will it be painful and dreadful? Certainly. Will it become a less democratic military junta? I am not so sure. Sometimes, it can turn out better, like it did in 1776. Is the outcome predictable? No. The cynic in me agrees with your assessment of the upcoming revolution.
For some reason, there is a portion of the population that wants liberty for themselves and are willing to cooperate with other people. For some reason, there is a portion of the population that wants freedom and are unwilling to cooperate. There are other types of people but it is not necessary to discuss them at this point.
For some reason, when there are groups of humans, there is a need for leadership. The larger the group, the larger the need. For some reason, these leaders always want liberty for themselves.
When leaders who want freedom are willing to cooperate, we see things like the founding of America. When leaders are unwilling to cooperate, we see things like current America, or Russia.
For some reason, in a society where the leaders have freedom but the general population does not, a general consensus will occur amongst the population. When this consensus occurs, protests can result and it may even lead to revolution.
Occupy Wall Street was clearly a consensus. It was successfully broken with an intensive psyops campaign but it was still a clear and unequivocal consensus. The message is clear, the amount of liberty that the general population wants is not even close to what they have. More specifically, the economic shackles are too tight.
With the Snowden revelations, we are seeing some of the tools that are being used to prevent liberty amongst the general population. What is funny is that those tools have been used against the leaders who authorized those tools. That indicates to me that revolution is closer than it ever has been. When the leaders of a group begin to feel their liberty threatened, they will act... and it will be ugly.
That is what we are facing right now.
The federal government actually provides many useful and needed services. As long as these services are being performed adequately, there is still little chance for revolution, despite everything that I said above.
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was a confidence killing event. There can not be many more of those types of failures or revolution will be ignited.
In short, the seeds of revolution have been sown (as they always are). Water has been poured on them (Katrina is an example (cute at that)). The ground has been fertilized (OWS). And finally, the sun is shining (Snowden). What do you think the results will be?
What I want and what you want is irrelevant. We are neither leaders nor significant players. The situation is deeply complex and incredibly subtle in numerous ways, so exact prediction is difficult. I would rather a transition back to the Constitution be a smooth and peaceful affair. Knowing what I know of human nature and knowing what I know of the situation, I am not entirely certain such a transition is possible.
Slashdot Mirror
LoL, I was terrified the first time I saw Guru Meditation Mode. I thought I had broken my computer forever... that being said, there is no #42 (maybe a funny Douglas Adams reference?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Thank you. You are awesome! I like the compile time and parameter passing configuration options to both be available. You are smart and doing it right. Keep on keeping on. :)
If crash dumps are really not possible, how about a plain 'ol text file in the root directory containing the reason for the crash/panic?
It is easily possible to do what you want. Trivially so... so why isn't it done? There is an answer to that question my friend and the answer is this:
A kernel will panic when it detects that the environment it is running in is not the same environment it thinks it is running in. What this means is that the kernel can no longer be certain of anything, up to and including whether or not it can write coherently to a file system. Rather than potentially trashing your file system, the kernel just prints to the screen as nothing can be damaged by that... but even that is dangerous. What the kernel thinks is the screen may not actually be the screen anymore.
In other words, once there is corruption in the kernel's environment, all bets are off and nothing is guaranteed, not even writing an error message to the screen. Writing coherently to a file system is actually a fairly complex event and is extremely dangerous in this situation.
Why should I be taxed differently because my significant other and I decided to sign a piece of paper?
Very valid questions. I am not sure that I can answer them but perhaps I can provide some perspective:
It is in society's interest to promote the creation of new members of society. The majority of children are created through a male and a female having sexual intercourse.
Society has an interest in the child being reared in a secure environment, hopefully one that is positive and nurturing so that the child becomes a healthy and socially well-adjusted adult.
One of the methods accepted by society at large for encouraging the creation of children and providing for their well-being while becoming adults is to formalize what a "family" means in its most basic sense. Marriage is a tool for "encouraging" the maintenance of this familial construct.
It is not surprising that people are resistant to swapping out portions of this construct for others, such as artificial insemination, gay marriage, adoption, etc. Some swaps have some very persuasive arguments for why they negate the entire concept of marriage as a tool for family creation and social stability (gay marriage), others do not, (artificial insemination, adoption).
For myself, I am generally for what is known as traditional marriage. I do not really care what gay or childless couples do (not that they are equivalent) or what benefits they can accrue by "aping" traditional marriage. All of these people who are yelling and screaming about it all just seem absurd to me. Keep your eyes on your own business and stop being jealous or envious that someone else might have it "as good as you".
The militant gay people think they have the right to tell other people what moral values they have to have.
LOL. You sound like one of the Christians who complain about persecution. I mean really? I bet if you let the gay people alone, they would leave you alone. You do not see Prop 8 as actually doing something TO gay people?
Look, I am not gay or in California (but I repeat myself) so in this particular instance, I have no horse in the race. I am just calling out silliness when I see it. When you claim that when gays defend themselves against an attack, Prop 8 in this case, they are forcing their morals on you, I just have to laugh at the absurdity of the claim. It is ludicrous.
I don't know about you, I don't know which groups I might be heading in 6 years, or 60 for that matter... best to just stop voting, donating money or having opinions that someone somewhere might find offensive... unless that too is considered offensive.
You can be a coward if you want... or you can stand behind what you believe in. If you find that what you believe is antithetical to all humans being treated equally under the law, then do not be surprised when that comes back and bites you.
You seem to think that this is about someone just having a view that is offensive to some people. It is absolutely NOT about that. It is about treating people unequally. That may have been the norm since forever; however, treating people unequally is treating people unequally. Expect this type of thing to come up more often in ways other than just civil rights, suffrage, or gay marriage. Anywhere that you see people being treated unequally is going to be a flashpoint sooner or later. If you support unequal treatment, then you will find yourself on the wrong end of these types of actions.
Then at least acknowledge that the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry when Eich had (past tense) done something that some might see as intolerant, the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done...
Hm. The response was worse than what he had done...
So on one hand, we have someone trying to deny equal rights to hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people... versus thousands (tens? hundreds?) of people trying to make one person lose their job.
In a numbers games, millions vs one, it is pretty clear which is worse. In a losing rights versus losing a job situation, i think it is pretty clear which is worse.
... and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.
You know what? If you are going to advocate, not just with words, making a certain type of citizen have fewer rights than another type of citizen, I am going to go with the idea that you should feel "chilled" about this precedent (not prescient).
But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.
This is not a free speech issue. It is about actions. The man tried to take rights away from certain people. That is NOT speech; otherwise, I could contribute time and money to having the government create a tax rate of 80% against all people who go by the handle of Kielistic and my actions would be called free speech. :)
I am not a lesbian (especially since I am a man), but I am not gay either.
I do not see this situation as intolerance of Eich. I see it as a self preservation move by gays and lesbians and those who care about what gays and lesbians experience.
In short, Eich was advocating removing rights from certain people and he personally donated time and money to make sure that happened. In other words, he fired the first shot. Of course the other side will shoot back, defend themselves, or otherwise remove the threat. That is exactly what happened.
For myself, I really do not care what other people do as long as it does not take anything away from others, hurt others, and is done with consent if it involves others. I find myself offended by Eich's actions because he was actively seeking to take something away from others.
I did not support the boycott but I am not offended by it either. It seemed a reasonable reaction to me even though it offends my basic sensibilities.
As evidenced, zebras did evolve due to considerable reasons, as their short hair made them rather specific targets for the flies above many other animals.
A person would think it would be "cheaper" in an evolutionary sense to evolve slightly longer hair instead of stripes. But meh, I am not an evolutionary biologist.
Scenario 3 works for me. I do not need their poisonous creed. In 1992, the Internet was useful to me. It is arguably MORE useful to me now but I can survive quite happily with what was available in 1992. I do not need a fully commercialized internet but they need my money. *I am the one in charge here. I have the decision of life or death for these scumbag parasites. There is no negotiation on my part. They can try to negotiate with me if they would like.
*I being myself, yourself, and everyone else who uses their brain and accesses the Internet from time to time.
Today, more and more websites are designed in a such a way that disabling Javascript breaks them completely -- you literally get nothing but a blank page.
That's okay. I just go elsewhere for the information then... or decide that I really didn't need/want to see it anyways. NoScript puts the control in MY hands where it belongs.
Well, maybe dog semen, but cat semen? That stuff is nearly undrinkable, much worse than Pepsi or Mountain Dew.
Holy mother of god! You were modded informative. Just. Wow.
ROFLMAO
Programming isn't hard because we made it so, it's hard because it is *intrinsically* hard. No amount of training wheels is going to make complex programming significantly easier.
Um, this guy is NOT designing training wheels. He is designing jet engines. Your attitude and point of view is counter-productive. :(
Ok fine.... but did anyone take the time to prove that peanut butter does not cause autism? Sure, we all believed it was vaccines but now we are pretty sure it is peanut butter. Where are the studies?! ;)
If the ignition turns to the "lock" position, you will not be steering at all no matter how hard you turn the wheel. Perhaps that is why people are dying, not because power steering and power brakes are no longer available.
There is an absurdly strong Puritan ethic running through America. You must work hard and feel pain to be close to god. Pleasures are STRICTLY forbidden. Leisure time is the work of the devil.
When there is no work to be had, the ovens of Nazi Germany will be brought back into use to deal with those evil, lazy, shiftless people. The prisons are already overflowing from this outlook. There will absolutely need to be a Final Solution.
When will it occur? I have no idea. It is coming though.
We need access to space, AI, roboticized labor, and the endless energy the sun is currently wasting as it goes out into space largely untapped - and everything that makes those things come faster are good things.
Unfortunately, there is no "we". Your existence is suffered right now merely as a convenience. Soon, you will not be needed or wanted at all. Enjoy the ovens as the robots push your body into it to be turned to ash. The Final Solution indeed.
Did I miss anything?
Yes. You forgot the very important step right before profit: ??? ;)
It's not "wackos" that are preventing the waste being used, it is the cost. What people like you don't understand is just because on paper you can build some cool piece of technology to deal with it doesn't mean it makes commercial sense to do so. ... If you can find someone willing to invest tens of billions in building one of these things and getting regulatory approval/certification, and taking on the risk of some problem developing during its lifetime that costs a fortune to fix or writes it off... Well, go ahead and build one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Wikipedia seems to agree with you somewhat about the economics; but I would have to ask if the economics of waste disposal are being factored into non-breeder reactors. I suspect it is not and for political "wacko" reasons.
The King James version in particular is a work of the highest art.
No it is not. It was censored to not offend modern* sensibilities.
*modern for the time it was written
Capitalism is free market, all the player are free to interact as they please, might it be by competing or by cooperating.
No. Once they start cooperating, it is no longer Capitalism. Capitalism is defined by competition. Freedom of interaction is something you are adding... incorrectly I might add.
... police officers are also there to protect you from those who might want to take your money or otherwise commit a crime against you.
No. No they are not. They are there to fill out the paperwork concerning your dead body. They have no requirement to actually protect you AND you have very few legal options to protect yourself.
Obligation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Second Amendment rights being abrogated are evidence of the latter.
Enjoy
I do not think you understand. I DO NOT WANT A REVOLUTION. I am saying that I am seeing it as inevitable. There is nothing you or I can do to stop it.
Will it be painful and dreadful? Certainly. Will it become a less democratic military junta? I am not so sure. Sometimes, it can turn out better, like it did in 1776. Is the outcome predictable? No. The cynic in me agrees with your assessment of the upcoming revolution.
Creepiest CAPTCHA ever, "sagittal".
Read my .sig some time.
For some reason, there is a portion of the population that wants liberty for themselves and are willing to cooperate with other people. For some reason, there is a portion of the population that wants freedom and are unwilling to cooperate. There are other types of people but it is not necessary to discuss them at this point.
For some reason, when there are groups of humans, there is a need for leadership. The larger the group, the larger the need. For some reason, these leaders always want liberty for themselves.
When leaders who want freedom are willing to cooperate, we see things like the founding of America. When leaders are unwilling to cooperate, we see things like current America, or Russia.
For some reason, in a society where the leaders have freedom but the general population does not, a general consensus will occur amongst the population. When this consensus occurs, protests can result and it may even lead to revolution.
Occupy Wall Street was clearly a consensus. It was successfully broken with an intensive psyops campaign but it was still a clear and unequivocal consensus. The message is clear, the amount of liberty that the general population wants is not even close to what they have. More specifically, the economic shackles are too tight.
With the Snowden revelations, we are seeing some of the tools that are being used to prevent liberty amongst the general population. What is funny is that those tools have been used against the leaders who authorized those tools. That indicates to me that revolution is closer than it ever has been. When the leaders of a group begin to feel their liberty threatened, they will act... and it will be ugly.
That is what we are facing right now.
The federal government actually provides many useful and needed services. As long as these services are being performed adequately, there is still little chance for revolution, despite everything that I said above.
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was a confidence killing event. There can not be many more of those types of failures or revolution will be ignited.
In short, the seeds of revolution have been sown (as they always are). Water has been poured on them (Katrina is an example (cute at that)). The ground has been fertilized (OWS). And finally, the sun is shining (Snowden). What do you think the results will be?
What I want and what you want is irrelevant. We are neither leaders nor significant players. The situation is deeply complex and incredibly subtle in numerous ways, so exact prediction is difficult. I would rather a transition back to the Constitution be a smooth and peaceful affair. Knowing what I know of human nature and knowing what I know of the situation, I am not entirely certain such a transition is possible.