Or... can anyone change my mind on this judgement by teling me how apple changing PROCESSOR ARCHITECTURES will cause everyone.. not just everyone, but NONTECHNICAL USERS that these easy distros are aimed at, to suddenly go out and buy, not just any x86 machine like they normaly would, but a MAC running OSX...... when the option already existed for these users to go out and buy a mac with OSX before?
I mean, is Apple switching to shipping OSX on Dells and turning OSX into a Windows app or something?
No. They're selling Macs. With OSX. Running the same OSX that it always has, targeting a different processor.
My god. It's like saying that because I shaved my cat, it's not only a chihuahua, but all other cats are going to turn into them... or something. I really just don't know how to apply a reasoned analogy to such illogical leaps.
> What you will see after this story is a very large increase in Visa and Mastercard in following up on their processors to insure they have completed their audits.
Hmm, if these audits are required, perhaps the ideal solution is something like SOX for CISP/PCI. Make the CEO's personally sign off on their audit compliance yearly, and if it's false, they go to jail.
Personal responsibility is after all a good thing, no?
SET failed because the CC companies MC don't want to pay a dime of the costs of upgrading the 20 hojillion mechanical zip-zap machines out there, and they want to support them til the year 3000, and there will never be a law compelling them to upgrade them.
I've been known to curse an absolute blue streak in comments, but I usually delete them immediately after writing. I use the standard "XXX" comment, with some fairly standard codes after:
Hey I can read the act too. If it's so innocuous, why this section?
(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
Secret searches don't make you the least bit nervous? Oh of course not, since it's only used against terrists.
Anyway, libraries have been working overtime to nullify the potential power of this provision by no longer keeping permanent records.. so perhaps it all worked out in the end.
The National Review uses terms like "seditious" without irony. Do you really believe they preach to anyone but the choir?
Same goes for the "10 most harmful books" list. These people just define the fringe... we need these people, because then we can grill our neocons and get them to publicly disavow that fringe. They successfully chased the democrats toward the center and split the vote (no more apparent than the fact that if Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won)... things are now shaping up like that for the Republican party as well.
> For the nth time, Java and Javascript have nothing at all to do with each other. The syntax is similar (both being based loosely on C), but that's it.
Javascript was initially called LiveScript. When LiveConnect came around and let people script java applets and instantiate arbitrary java objects, they changed the name to JavaScript. I think it's still officially spelled with StudlyCaps.
For being unrelated, there's actually some pretty tight integration. Mind you, LiveConnect was (and perhaps is now) so buggy that it was unusable, but the name change came around for a good reason. And riding on the coattails of a billion dollars of hype didn't hurt either.
There are a lot of improvements that could be made to the interface, the camera could be a lot better with an community-improved firmware. One example: I would like to setup it to take one shot every seconds. Another: mass resizing photos. To delete, you have the option to select the thumbnais of the photos, then delete them all at once. If my memory fills and I need to take more shots, resizing down existing photos is a good workaround, but doing so one by one is a pain.
The model that does all that costs $300 more. See how that works for them?
Seriously, it won't. If you want to understand the gate logic, you need femtosecond analyzers and other expensive scientific equipment. Having full specs will only help a little.
What the specs ARE likely to tell you is is "card A and B have the exact same register mappings, except B costs $300 more, and is initialized with a few different bits on powerup."
Bill: That's nice. You know, it'd be a real shame if your driver couldn't be WHQL certified, and users had to see a warning box when they ran with your card. Or worse, if there were mysterious blue screens . ..
"It'd be a real shame when our engineers show a disassembly of your driver verification software before the last windows update and after causing our drivers to break, especially in light of this conversation. There's a few judges who might see things our way."
Claims of conspiracy are just intellectual laziness. I suspect yours was a joke, but I think many people actually believe it.
Now to make my own point: I know companies have IP arrangements that prevent them from opening drivers. Wouldn't it be nice if they disclosed this fact, or gave some kind of reasonable explanation to developers other than patting them on the head and saying "no specs today, go have some cookies". I'd just like to see the FAQ of "Why isn't the driver open source" answered truthfully and reasonably completely.
I know about the spatial relationship thing, and I'd bet it's largely a real natural difference in cognition. Real scientific studies such as these are careful to show the precise thing being studied, however. Waving one's hand at something and calling typing a "spatial relationship thing" doesn't stand on its own. The term red herring is another one from logic that I'm tempted to throw out. Don't know if there's latin for it, except maybe non sequitur.
> Forget organized religion. Or disorganized religion in the case of most Protestant sects. The foundation of our society is, and always has been, the Bible.
And as we all know, only the bible is the authentic document, the only source of all morality, and everything else is just aping it... right?
Mmmm hmm. Go back to church and preach to your choir. You get no traction here.
> specifically, I wanted to know if the GNU folks had to have GNU in the license name. You can guess what the response was...
Flames like "the G stands for General" followed by colorful aspersions on your intelligence?
Re:its a spatial thing generally only geeks can do
on
Advocating Dvorak
·
· Score: 1
> remember the early typists were women and women are typically much worse than men at mental manipulation of spatial relationships
I simply asserted that you or your friend most likely bends fingers when typing, "spatial memory" or no. Pseudoscientific babble like this has nothing to do with it.
Do your friend's wrists *ever* touch the desk or wrist rest? If so, they're on some kind of "home row", which might not be perfectly aligned, and might shift some, but those fingers are going to bend to vertically traverse the keyboard, and that's going to work those carpals out, and wear 'em out eventually.
I don't know about you, but I sure didn't move my whole arm while typing this sentence.
QWERTY was designed to alternate the fingers, which it never actually did all that well. The reason we ended up with the particular lousy layout of qwerty is that keyboard arrangements were PATENTED back in the days when there were multiple layouts. Either nobody got a patent on qwerty before its usage was well-established, or someone got a whole lot of royalties on the one layout that survived.
Hammers stick when you mash two keys NEXT to each other. Haven't any of you even USED a manual typewriter to verify this? Of course, the fact that typing words (like "fact") all with one hand is slower will be the next canard that gets thrown out to disparage QWERTY, despite the direct contradiction with the "slow down to prevent keys from sticking" myth.
Repeating the same old myths to support one's emotional attachments to a keyboard layout is hardly winning any converts to your... cause, or whatever it is.
Umm, no. Many, if not most, societies in history allowed and encouraged the killing of humans, both within the society and without.
Oh without question. But its no longer unilateral, it's part of the social contract. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Sometimes it's without a vote, and sometimes societies are ruled without any such contract. But even while Nazi Germany was busy exterminating millions of former members of its society, one person going around and killing members who are still allowed in would still have been frowned upon.
The words to look for were "unilateral" and "members". And besides, this is all just a theoretical thing. I'm positing that societies tend toward a morality that's self-preserving of the society, and I'm just giving you my theory as to one way in which that operates. Personally I judge murder in terms of a personal morality (one that amazingly enough comes without commandment from a supernatural source), and I suspect so do most. I imagine it partly originates with the society's morality, but largely due to my own inhibition from getting myself killed.
> I'm curious. What would be your logic-based argument in favour of a law making murder a crime?
It's kind of hard to uphold a social contract when some decide to unilaterally remove others from membership in that society, in a rather permanent fashion. Stable societies require the faith of their members that they'll actually be alive to participate.
It's not related to Haskell monads, no. However, Haskell syntax tends to be a lot like piping, and lazy lists act like streams. One of monad's biggest features is the ability to pipe arbitrary objects around, and this will allow in its own way lazy evaluation to become ubiquitous in C# code (especially if you can take your same lazy list generators from C# and plug them into Cw code). I suspect the name is just paying homage.
> As time marches on, though, what's the likelyhood that unix tools will not get that much better?
Unix shells haven't significantly evolved in 20 years. Hell, most of them don't even have the features that ECL had on PRIMOS. I think it's a safe bet that bash in 5 years will be virtually indistinguishable from bash of 5 years ago, if it even releases anything but bugfix versions.
Slashdot Mirror
Or ... can anyone change my mind on this judgement by teling me how apple changing PROCESSOR ARCHITECTURES will cause everyone .. not just everyone, but NONTECHNICAL USERS that these easy distros are aimed at, to suddenly go out and buy, not just any x86 machine like they normaly would, but a MAC running OSX ... ... when the option already existed for these users to go out and buy a mac with OSX before?
... or something. I really just don't know how to apply a reasoned analogy to such illogical leaps.
I mean, is Apple switching to shipping OSX on Dells and turning OSX into a Windows app or something?
No. They're selling Macs. With OSX. Running the same OSX that it always has, targeting a different processor.
My god. It's like saying that because I shaved my cat, it's not only a chihuahua, but all other cats are going to turn into them
> What you will see after this story is a very large increase in Visa and Mastercard in following up on their processors to insure they have completed their audits.
Hmm, if these audits are required, perhaps the ideal solution is something like SOX for CISP/PCI. Make the CEO's personally sign off on their audit compliance yearly, and if it's false, they go to jail.
Personal responsibility is after all a good thing, no?
SET failed because the CC companies MC don't want to pay a dime of the costs of upgrading the 20 hojillion mechanical zip-zap machines out there, and they want to support them til the year 3000, and there will never be a law compelling them to upgrade them.
That's why.
Captain Anal, the Anal Alert is flashing! To the Analmobile!
"I believe you mean that the indicator light associated with the Anal Alert is flashing. Secondly, your second sentence was not even complete..."
I can see the next slashdot headline: PC Case Made of Cheese
Secret searches don't make you the least bit nervous? Oh of course not, since it's only used against terrists.
Anyway, libraries have been working overtime to nullify the potential power of this provision by no longer keeping permanent records
If it's never been used, it won't be missed, no?
I mean hey, let's reinstitute slavery. Long as the law is never used, it's okay, right?
The National Review uses terms like "seditious" without irony. Do you really believe they preach to anyone but the choir?
... we need these people, because then we can grill our neocons and get them to publicly disavow that fringe. They successfully chased the democrats toward the center and split the vote (no more apparent than the fact that if Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won) ... things are now shaping up like that for the Republican party as well.
Same goes for the "10 most harmful books" list. These people just define the fringe
> For the nth time, Java and Javascript have nothing at all to do with each other. The syntax is similar (both being based loosely on C), but that's it.
Javascript was initially called LiveScript. When LiveConnect came around and let people script java applets and instantiate arbitrary java objects, they changed the name to JavaScript. I think it's still officially spelled with StudlyCaps.
For being unrelated, there's actually some pretty tight integration. Mind you, LiveConnect was (and perhaps is now) so buggy that it was unusable, but the name change came around for a good reason. And riding on the coattails of a billion dollars of hype didn't hurt either.
There are a lot of improvements that could be made to the interface, the camera could be a lot better with an community-improved firmware. One example: I would like to setup it to take one shot every seconds. Another: mass resizing photos. To delete, you have the option to select the thumbnais of the photos, then delete them all at once. If my memory fills and I need to take more shots, resizing down existing photos is a good workaround, but doing so one by one is a pain.
The model that does all that costs $300 more. See how that works for them?
> Can you verify this?
Seriously, it won't. If you want to understand the gate logic, you need femtosecond analyzers and other expensive scientific equipment. Having full specs will only help a little.
What the specs ARE likely to tell you is is "card A and B have the exact same register mappings, except B costs $300 more, and is initialized with a few different bits on powerup."
Bill: That's nice. You know, it'd be a real shame if your driver couldn't be WHQL certified, and users had to see a warning box when they ran with your card. Or worse, if there were mysterious blue screens . . .
"It'd be a real shame when our engineers show a disassembly of your driver verification software before the last windows update and after causing our drivers to break, especially in light of this conversation. There's a few judges who might see things our way."
Claims of conspiracy are just intellectual laziness. I suspect yours was a joke, but I think many people actually believe it.
Now to make my own point: I know companies have IP arrangements that prevent them from opening drivers. Wouldn't it be nice if they disclosed this fact, or gave some kind of reasonable explanation to developers other than patting them on the head and saying "no specs today, go have some cookies". I'd just like to see the FAQ of "Why isn't the driver open source" answered truthfully and reasonably completely.
I'd also like a pony.
I know about the spatial relationship thing, and I'd bet it's largely a real natural difference in cognition. Real scientific studies such as these are careful to show the precise thing being studied, however. Waving one's hand at something and calling typing a "spatial relationship thing" doesn't stand on its own. The term red herring is another one from logic that I'm tempted to throw out. Don't know if there's latin for it, except maybe non sequitur.
> Forget organized religion. Or disorganized religion in the case of most Protestant sects. The foundation of our society is, and always has been, the Bible.
... right?
And as we all know, only the bible is the authentic document, the only source of all morality, and everything else is just aping it
Mmmm hmm. Go back to church and preach to your choir. You get no traction here.
> specifically, I wanted to know if the GNU folks had to have GNU in the license name. You can guess what the response was...
Flames like "the G stands for General" followed by colorful aspersions on your intelligence?
> remember the early typists were women and women are typically much worse than men at mental manipulation of spatial relationships
I simply asserted that you or your friend most likely bends fingers when typing, "spatial memory" or no. Pseudoscientific babble like this has nothing to do with it.
Do your friend's wrists *ever* touch the desk or wrist rest? If so, they're on some kind of "home row", which might not be perfectly aligned, and might shift some, but those fingers are going to bend to vertically traverse the keyboard, and that's going to work those carpals out, and wear 'em out eventually.
I don't know about you, but I sure didn't move my whole arm while typing this sentence.
QWERTY was designed to alternate the fingers, which it never actually did all that well. The reason we ended up with the particular lousy layout of qwerty is that keyboard arrangements were PATENTED back in the days when there were multiple layouts. Either nobody got a patent on qwerty before its usage was well-established, or someone got a whole lot of royalties on the one layout that survived.
... cause, or whatever it is.
Hammers stick when you mash two keys NEXT to each other. Haven't any of you even USED a manual typewriter to verify this? Of course, the fact that typing words (like "fact") all with one hand is slower will be the next canard that gets thrown out to disparage QWERTY, despite the direct contradiction with the "slow down to prevent keys from sticking" myth.
Repeating the same old myths to support one's emotional attachments to a keyboard layout is hardly winning any converts to your
Umm, no. Many, if not most, societies in history allowed and encouraged the killing of humans, both within the society and without.
Oh without question. But its no longer unilateral, it's part of the social contract. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Sometimes it's without a vote, and sometimes societies are ruled without any such contract. But even while Nazi Germany was busy exterminating millions of former members of its society, one person going around and killing members who are still allowed in would still have been frowned upon.
The words to look for were "unilateral" and "members". And besides, this is all just a theoretical thing. I'm positing that societies tend toward a morality that's self-preserving of the society, and I'm just giving you my theory as to one way in which that operates. Personally I judge murder in terms of a personal morality (one that amazingly enough comes without commandment from a supernatural source), and I suspect so do most. I imagine it partly originates with the society's morality, but largely due to my own inhibition from getting myself killed.
Then the government enforces the censorship with a bu11e+ t0 y0ur h34d
> I'm curious. What would be your logic-based argument in favour of a law making murder a crime?
It's kind of hard to uphold a social contract when some decide to unilaterally remove others from membership in that society, in a rather permanent fashion. Stable societies require the faith of their members that they'll actually be alive to participate.
> In fact, all this legislation does is gaurantee an option for consumers.
It leaves no option whatsoever for the ISP's. Last I looked, they had rights as well.
It's not related to Haskell monads, no. However, Haskell syntax tends to be a lot like piping, and lazy lists act like streams. One of monad's biggest features is the ability to pipe arbitrary objects around, and this will allow in its own way lazy evaluation to become ubiquitous in C# code (especially if you can take your same lazy list generators from C# and plug them into Cw code). I suspect the name is just paying homage.
> As time marches on, though, what's the likelyhood that unix tools will not get that much better?
Unix shells haven't significantly evolved in 20 years. Hell, most of them don't even have the features that ECL had on PRIMOS. I think it's a safe bet that bash in 5 years will be virtually indistinguishable from bash of 5 years ago, if it even releases anything but bugfix versions.