...and I'm damn proud of it. It's in 320kbit mp3 format, the quality is superb, idv3 tags are correct and the download speed was fast.
What do you mean by "buying it"? Considering that copyright exists for being an incentive to creation and I see the creators are either dead or have no living standard problems, I see that no further payment is necessary. This is how the system is supposed to work, right?
Also, I promise I didn't steal anything. That'd be an awfully wrong thing to do, to deprive someone of their hard earned property, not to mention someone might get hurt while someone is shoplifting a CD or breaking into the John Lennon archive...
It might be because Lessig is involved heavily in what the FCC regulates. He starts at the area of his expertise. We'd need more people like him, experts in their field shaping policy.
This only means that your congress and other government agencies are also bad, it doesn't make FCC practice okay and sure as hell doesn't constitute a reason to stop improving things.
Who cares how someone obtains knowledge, by studying by themselves or through rapid interaction with his peers? What matters is whether he learned something or not.
I don't care about homework and exercises, someone who cheats will flunk their exams aswell and if he won't, then who cares whether he did the exercises properly or not because apparently he understands the subject!
But it sometimes seems a bit sloppy...
eg. a full 35% of the syscalls the MySQL server makes are failed
sched_setparam calls that are passing in invalid values.
Oh wow, I knew mysql doesn't have the most beautiful code, but this is pretty funny.
Well, as someone who uses Pg with 100k unique user visits a day, Pg beats the crap out of Mysql if we're talking about anything else than very simple selects.
If you need transactions, stored procedures, subqueries, complex queries with joins, multi-value insert, etc., then you'll get much better performance results with Postgresql >= 8.2 than with Mysql. 8.3 adds a nuce performance gain on 8.2 aswell, while the database is much more consistent than mysql is.
I think this boils down to the philosophy: Postgresql strived/strives to be correct first and then fast, mysql strives to be fast and then they decided they'd like some correctness and ACID features. We can see how well that worked out.
This case with Jimmy shows how open initiatives win the day again. It doesn't matter if Jimmy Wales gets thrown into jail for murder, or if his character is undermined. It doesn't matter, because the only thing that matters is the positive contribution he made by founding Wikipedia and his later life or his personal details don't effect that.
It is like science, it doesn't matter who comes up with the evidence or the theory to explain it. The only thing that matters whether it's correct or not.
Do you really think my parents give a rolling fig about GPL vs. non-GPL code, who's exporting who's symbols or any of that? They just want their damned wireless Internet to work...... and that's why they have a Mac. Seriously - nice concept, the whole Linux thing, but it just isn't going to be for the masses. Sorry to tell you that.
Do you really think kernel hackers give a rolling fig about your parents, who's displaying ignorance or any of that? They just want their damned kernel to work and work well...in the next 20 years. And that is why more and more people use their kernel. Seriously - nice concept, the whole ignorance and instant gratification thing, but it just isn't going to be working on the long term. Sorry to tell you that.
What you refer to as standard binary is just code that can be made to run on the computer directly, because the CPU understands the commands, etc. A VM is the next evolutionary step in the process, because you determine what's the best assembly/native code on runtime, on the fly, instead of static source code inspection.
This means not only more portable code, but overall faster than compiled execution speeds for programs. So far the VMs have been under performing, but they are improving and at a faster rate than gcc and friends.
So yeah, there is more to it than just platform independence.
Science Fiction uses fantastic elements as window dressing to cover up the fact that they are trying to get you to think about the human element. All good science fiction (Star Trek, Asimov, BSG, B5, Firefly (definitely not all of it, but examples)) is less about the science and more about the people and the choices they make.
This is not entirely true. Scifi as a definition changed due to mainstream degradation to mean "technology in the future/space", but that doesn't mean scifi in the original meaning of the word "uses fantastic elements" to make you think about the human element. It's just that scifi not only means "new technology", but "a society/organization that produced the technology", "a society/organization that produced.", "a society/organization", "a society/organization?", "a?". This is the definition of good scifi for me.
BSG doesn't show the imagination, the questions that would be necessary for it to be watchable for me as scifi. Specifically, BSG argues about the death penalty, torture, religion, soul, machines and cancer, in a late 20th/early 21st century society. There are no ideas how society might be totally different, even the media and governmental structure and politics mirror current affairs on Earth. They are expecting me to suspend a mountain of disbelief and inconsistency and believe that a civilization capable of creating AI, interstellar travel and other advanced technologies, but they cannot cure cancer and the technological changes had no affect on society? Why are there still reporters running around in person? Why are they using fighter jets in space? How comes society didn't evolve towards a better kind of democracy or a non-democratic but extremely evolutionarily stable system? How did philosophy change in respect to the individual? What is a colonial citizen's view of existence/the Universe? What would the change of human lifespan do to a society? Do humans still grow their food from other organisms like plants or animals or do they have a convention that bans interfering with multicellular organisms and they rely on synthetic food? What do humans do with the habitat around them? Did we move to space leaving planets around like huge national parks?
Do we have things like professions in this future? What is the state of sexual standards between humans? What is the view of society on history, do they learn from it, think the past was barbaric or consider things according to the moral zeitgeist of the time? How did humanity's view on personal interaction, morals, values, standards, hopes, fears and dreams change and what didn't change? If sleep was eliminated by a humanity-wide genetic maintenance program, how does this effects life? Is a bed viewed as a place for copulation and occasional meditation? Do humans have a legal system and if not what replaced it or made it unnecessary? What about property?
If BSG would try to look into a future and do a though experiment with even 10% of what I posed as questions I'd like explored in scifi, that would make me happy. If it pose a single thoroughly interesting question I didn't/couldn't or even wouldn't think of - that would be even better.
Whoa, you're way too defensive. This wasn't ment to be 'merkin (*cough*) bashing. I just simply hilighted the fact that a scifi in space could be, you know, less USA specific. I don't think the majority of americans enjoy a scifi series because the issues presented are so much like regular life.
For me a scifi dealing with problems, isssues and social structures familiar from everyday life - sucks. It sucks because a scifi must explore new possibilities and do things differently, imagine the as of yet unseen. I guess I was expecting BG to be a science fiction series, not soap in space.
...the USA in space. If I'm hopeful I'd say the cultural, unconscious biases are very strong, if I'm cynical I'd say that the writers serve some american media interests by spreading morality tales about things from an american aspect.
It is better that they pretend to be a democracy, let semi-free capitalism in, instead of being a full blown dictatorship. The former is easier to pull towards more freedom.
In the EU's case that isn't what we're talking about anyway. We're talking about an above average (but obviously not perfect) organization of countries telling the below average that censorship has repecussions to their economy. Sure, I'd love if the EU would do more internally, but this move is still a positive one.
Everyone is saying they do it for the good of the people, but the sad truth is censorship apart from the very limited scope of national security is either bad or neutral with a cost. It never helps.
While I agree that some of the censorship in Europe is the more benign kind - I'm talking about the holocaust denial prosecution - it is probably less helpful than if society's moral self-censorship would be allowed to run it's course.
I don't get it. They are doing exactly what I wanted about Firefox in 3.x.
While new features can be nice, I couldn't name a feasible feature that a significant number of people would want and it's not in core Firefox or in an extension already. What I want from Firefox now is to provide the existing features in a secure, stable, fast and memory conserving way, in this order. Heck, I've turned off most of the new features in Firefox 2.x and wished they'd fix some annoying bugs instead. In 3.x the developers did a lot of work to remedy a lot of those bugs and issues, so big big kudos for them!
Cleaner code matters - it results in less bugs and security vulnerabilities, easier to add features and most likely better code.
We have quite accurate temperature and CO2 atmospheric concentration data for more than the past half million years from ice core samples retrieved from glaciers and permanently sub zero regions of the planet.
I agree, the point I was trying to make is that people should research scientific topics carefully and to the largest extent possible. Even then, they shouldn't be cocky to assume that they have the necessary knowledge to comprehend it, or the qualifications to debate with scientists about it. Specifically, what shouldn't be done is scraping the top of climate science and dismissing scientists based on that. I wish the average person would comprehend issues better and take at least one course in statistics, but if someone can't be bothered to learn the science behind a subject then he has no leg to stand on to issue judgement on a topic. Science is not democracy, the universe is a control freak dictator (please don't take it as if I'd be personifying the universe, I'm just engaging the same kind of intellectual elitism as Stephen Hawking does when he refers to god as a nonreligious metaphor).
I should have written "trust the scientific model" instead of "trust what they say". Ah well.
The point is to either comprehend the science behind it and be able to argue the subject on a scientific level, or leave it to the hundreds of scientists and governmental advisors (mostly outside the USA) to do it for you and trust what they say. This stuff is complex and I dislike the fact that some misguided people are telling some of the smartest scientists on the damn planet, that what they think is stupid.
If you'd be familiar with the issue, you'd know that scientists are not denying naturally occuring changes and are in fact they were the ones who observed those cycles in the first place, but they're saying that what we have now is happening much faster and is a bigger change than what we had before. A few degrees change you say? Put those few degrees into perspective! The global yearly average temperature is 14C. A few degrees colder and life wouldn't have developed on the planet. A few degrees hotter and life is forced to adapt to wildly different conditions, rapidly. A fraction of a degree has a huge effect!
Slashdot Mirror
...and I'm damn proud of it. It's in 320kbit mp3 format, the quality is superb, idv3 tags are correct and the download speed was fast.
What do you mean by "buying it"? Considering that copyright exists for being an incentive to creation and I see the creators are either dead or have no living standard problems, I see that no further payment is necessary. This is how the system is supposed to work, right?
Also, I promise I didn't steal anything. That'd be an awfully wrong thing to do, to deprive someone of their hard earned property, not to mention someone might get hurt while someone is shoplifting a CD or breaking into the John Lennon archive...
It might be because Lessig is involved heavily in what the FCC regulates. He starts at the area of his expertise. We'd need more people like him, experts in their field shaping policy.
This only means that your congress and other government agencies are also bad, it doesn't make FCC practice okay and sure as hell doesn't constitute a reason to stop improving things.
Who cares how someone obtains knowledge, by studying by themselves or through rapid interaction with his peers? What matters is whether he learned something or not.
I don't care about homework and exercises, someone who cheats will flunk their exams aswell and if he won't, then who cares whether he did the exercises properly or not because apparently he understands the subject!
Well, as someone who uses Pg with 100k unique user visits a day, Pg beats the crap out of Mysql if we're talking about anything else than very simple selects.
If you need transactions, stored procedures, subqueries, complex queries with joins, multi-value insert, etc., then you'll get much better performance results with Postgresql >= 8.2 than with Mysql. 8.3 adds a nuce performance gain on 8.2 aswell, while the database is much more consistent than mysql is.
I think this boils down to the philosophy: Postgresql strived/strives to be correct first and then fast, mysql strives to be fast and then they decided they'd like some correctness and ACID features. We can see how well that worked out.
This case with Jimmy shows how open initiatives win the day again. It doesn't matter if Jimmy Wales gets thrown into jail for murder, or if his character is undermined. It doesn't matter, because the only thing that matters is the positive contribution he made by founding Wikipedia and his later life or his personal details don't effect that.
It is like science, it doesn't matter who comes up with the evidence or the theory to explain it. The only thing that matters whether it's correct or not.
Ignorance doesn't add any survival value, but it can be deadly. Take that, puny human.
-- Natural Selection
I consider thepiratebay the preview site and full length mp3s the previews.
It's just that noone has been supplying me with the full FLAC quality for a reasonable price, until now.
Your post is missing the point.
What you refer to as standard binary is just code that can be made to run on the computer directly, because the CPU understands the commands, etc. A VM is the next evolutionary step in the process, because you determine what's the best assembly/native code on runtime, on the fly, instead of static source code inspection.
This means not only more portable code, but overall faster than compiled execution speeds for programs. So far the VMs have been under performing, but they are improving and at a faster rate than gcc and friends.
So yeah, there is more to it than just platform independence.
I guess we'll see which is better, Python's native, (J)VM or Parrot.
BSG doesn't show the imagination, the questions that would be necessary for it to be watchable for me as scifi. Specifically, BSG argues about the death penalty, torture, religion, soul, machines and cancer, in a late 20th/early 21st century society. There are no ideas how society might be totally different, even the media and governmental structure and politics mirror current affairs on Earth. They are expecting me to suspend a mountain of disbelief and inconsistency and believe that a civilization capable of creating AI, interstellar travel and other advanced technologies, but they cannot cure cancer and the technological changes had no affect on society? Why are there still reporters running around in person? Why are they using fighter jets in space? How comes society didn't evolve towards a better kind of democracy or a non-democratic but extremely evolutionarily stable system? How did philosophy change in respect to the individual? What is a colonial citizen's view of existence/the Universe? What would the change of human lifespan do to a society? Do humans still grow their food from other organisms like plants or animals or do they have a convention that bans interfering with multicellular organisms and they rely on synthetic food? What do humans do with the habitat around them? Did we move to space leaving planets around like huge national parks?
Do we have things like professions in this future? What is the state of sexual standards between humans? What is the view of society on history, do they learn from it, think the past was barbaric or consider things according to the moral zeitgeist of the time? How did humanity's view on personal interaction, morals, values, standards, hopes, fears and dreams change and what didn't change? If sleep was eliminated by a humanity-wide genetic maintenance program, how does this effects life? Is a bed viewed as a place for copulation and occasional meditation? Do humans have a legal system and if not what replaced it or made it unnecessary? What about property?
If BSG would try to look into a future and do a though experiment with even 10% of what I posed as questions I'd like explored in scifi, that would make me happy. If it pose a single thoroughly interesting question I didn't/couldn't or even wouldn't think of - that would be even better.
Whoa, you're way too defensive. This wasn't ment to be 'merkin (*cough*) bashing. I just simply hilighted the fact that a scifi in space could be, you know, less USA specific. I don't think the majority of americans enjoy a scifi series because the issues presented are so much like regular life.
For me a scifi dealing with problems, isssues and social structures familiar from everyday life - sucks. It sucks because a scifi must explore new possibilities and do things differently, imagine the as of yet unseen. I guess I was expecting BG to be a science fiction series, not soap in space.
I have no problem with a reality show or a show about lawyers being USA centric. But scifi?
...the USA in space. If I'm hopeful I'd say the cultural, unconscious biases are very strong, if I'm cynical I'd say that the writers serve some american media interests by spreading morality tales about things from an american aspect.
It is better that they pretend to be a democracy, let semi-free capitalism in, instead of being a full blown dictatorship. The former is easier to pull towards more freedom.
In the EU's case that isn't what we're talking about anyway. We're talking about an above average (but obviously not perfect) organization of countries telling the below average that censorship has repecussions to their economy. Sure, I'd love if the EU would do more internally, but this move is still a positive one.
On the other hand, applying double standards is better than applying no standards at all to noone.
Everyone is saying they do it for the good of the people, but the sad truth is censorship apart from the very limited scope of national security is either bad or neutral with a cost. It never helps.
While I agree that some of the censorship in Europe is the more benign kind - I'm talking about the holocaust denial prosecution - it is probably less helpful than if society's moral self-censorship would be allowed to run it's course.
3* tabs should be enough for everybody.
*For older versions of IE, 3 equals 1.
I don't get it. They are doing exactly what I wanted about Firefox in 3.x.
While new features can be nice, I couldn't name a feasible feature that a significant number of people would want and it's not in core Firefox or in an extension already. What I want from Firefox now is to provide the existing features in a secure, stable, fast and memory conserving way, in this order. Heck, I've turned off most of the new features in Firefox 2.x and wished they'd fix some annoying bugs instead. In 3.x the developers did a lot of work to remedy a lot of those bugs and issues, so big big kudos for them!
Cleaner code matters - it results in less bugs and security vulnerabilities, easier to add features and most likely better code.
We have quite accurate temperature and CO2 atmospheric concentration data for more than the past half million years from ice core samples retrieved from glaciers and permanently sub zero regions of the planet.
I agree, the point I was trying to make is that people should research scientific topics carefully and to the largest extent possible. Even then, they shouldn't be cocky to assume that they have the necessary knowledge to comprehend it, or the qualifications to debate with scientists about it. Specifically, what shouldn't be done is scraping the top of climate science and dismissing scientists based on that. I wish the average person would comprehend issues better and take at least one course in statistics, but if someone can't be bothered to learn the science behind a subject then he has no leg to stand on to issue judgement on a topic. Science is not democracy, the universe is a control freak dictator (please don't take it as if I'd be personifying the universe, I'm just engaging the same kind of intellectual elitism as Stephen Hawking does when he refers to god as a nonreligious metaphor).
I should have written "trust the scientific model" instead of "trust what they say". Ah well.
The point is to either comprehend the science behind it and be able to argue the subject on a scientific level, or leave it to the hundreds of scientists and governmental advisors (mostly outside the USA) to do it for you and trust what they say. This stuff is complex and I dislike the fact that some misguided people are telling some of the smartest scientists on the damn planet, that what they think is stupid.
If you'd be familiar with the issue, you'd know that scientists are not denying naturally occuring changes and are in fact they were the ones who observed those cycles in the first place, but they're saying that what we have now is happening much faster and is a bigger change than what we had before. A few degrees change you say? Put those few degrees into perspective! The global yearly average temperature is 14C. A few degrees colder and life wouldn't have developed on the planet. A few degrees hotter and life is forced to adapt to wildly different conditions, rapidly. A fraction of a degree has a huge effect!