Don't be naive. How are you going to justify your "basic" axioms? An appeal to human nature? An analogy? Outside of a few notable exceptions, everyone understands the concept of a logical argument. Which is why people choose their axioms to fit their agenda. This is why people disagree. Logic is easy. Convincing people is hard.
Yes, there are times when Unstable gets fixed faster than Stable. The way the whole Stable/Testing/Unstable thing works is that a package maintainer submits a package to Debian. It is placed in unstable. If it survives two weeks there, it is moved to testing. Eventually, there is a freeze and all of testing becomes stable. Now, if a bug is found in a testing package, a new package is submitted to Debian to replace it. So it ends up in Unstable for two weeks. Packages can be fast tracked from Unstable to Testing if the issue is severe.
Regarding whether Unstable got a fix at the same time as Gentoo, that depends on whether or not the package maintainer is following the source as closely as Gentoo. In theory, there should be no difference.
There has always been a stigma against intermarriage in Central and South America. This has lessened a lot in the last hundred years, but it wouldn't surprise me if the upper echelons of Argentina's economy suffered skin cancer rates as high as those in Australia. They're pasty.
It's a little known fact that the plane this was modelled after was the world's first use of Elmer's white glue. It was used to glue wooden dowel and tenon joints together.
Go easy on him mods -- I'm sure the front page refreshed and he didn't realize a new story came up.
In any event, there seems to be a much tighter community amongst Mac (and free software) users that makes marketting easier. The best apps spread by word of mouth much more quickly than in the windows world. If I felt like trolling, I might suggest that this is due to software elitism helping form a sense of community. Oh, what the hell. I'm a Mac user, so I'll say it anyway.
Slowpokes cause a great many accidents. The speed at which the majority of people drive is by definition the safest.
By definition? I don't think you know what that phrase means. It might be true that the speed at which most people drive is safest, but that certainly doesn't follow from the meaning of "the speed the majority of people drive" or the definition of "safest."
(Hint: if you need to perform empirical observation to verify a claim, the claim is not "true by definition.")
And they laughed when I welcomed our mecha controlling roach overlords.
Re:Hmmmmm...
on
How Ice Melts
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I meant something stronger than mere thermodynamic reversibility. There are many ways for water to freeze and ice to melt, and as long as the end results are the same, they're thermodynamically equivalent. The research presented here examines the reasons why one path is chosen over another. Instead of dealing with statistics, the researches are investigating particulars.
Re:Hmmmmm...
on
How Ice Melts
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This could have all sorts of ramifications in materials science. If a good model for macroscopic melting is found, we might be able to design processes to alloy metals much more resistant to heat than are currently possible, for instance.
Re:Hmmmmm...
on
How Ice Melts
·
· Score: 4, Informative
That's a shame. This is a very interesting topic. We've known for centuries that melting is related to heat, and there are molecular models of freezing. Namely, water molecules tend to align themselves in a crystalline structure unless they're stirred up. A region freezes when the average kinetic energy is low enough for the molecules to align themselves. Consider a fairly large volume of water -- in macroscopic scales. Heat conduction through liquid water is faster than through ice, because of convection. So the macroscopic freezing process isn't reversible. (There are other reasons why the process isn't reversible, but one suffices)
This means that a different process is responsible for macroscopic melting. Since macroscopic chunks of ice tend to be imperfect crystals, it stands to reason that the weak unions between crystalline structures facillitate melting.
Probably not, but instead of just having to sweep up some dry crumbs, because it lands on the buttered/jammed face, you have to clean up a sticky mess.
Dude, didn't your grandfather fish? Didn't he tell you about "the big one"? How much do you think this guy is going to brag? Are you slowly realizing what the joke was?
Regarding exponential distributions -- is that really what you meant? It seems to me that you shouldn't be most likely to be infected the moment you connect. Especially since there are a large number of machines scanning more-or-less at random.
Of course, my knowledge of probability and statistics are limited to (a lot) of measure theory (leading to Descriptive Set theory) and a bit of the terminology. So I'm probably wrong.
Not off the top of my head, no. And I don't think it'll be particularly straightforward either. These are my best guesses.
Do you have OS X currently installed? yaboot? If so, chroot into the drive from OS X and install -- this might be tricky, but probably doable. Don't let the installer mess around with OpenFirmware. Then mess around with the yaboot.conf to make a new bootload item. I suspect that getting the right address requires a trip into OpenFirmware. There a couple of other great OpenFirmware references, but I can't seem to find any. I'll see what I can find later. Anyway, the basic idea is to get yaboot to take over bootloading duties, and make it aware of the kernel on your firewire drive. I have no idea if this will work, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
Another option would be to set up a "yaboot" file on your firewire drive like linux install discs have. Then you can just use OpenFirmware to boot the bootloader. This would be more portable since you could run linux on any mac with OF, but would be less convenient since you'd have to go into OF everytime you wanted to boot. Perhaps a combination of the two techniques would work (having a global yaboot installed on your mac so you wouldn't need OF, but also having yaboot on your firewire drive so you could boot elsewhere without touching the local disk).
I'm not confusing anything. Come on, look at my sig.;-) The other guy said that the median tends to the mean if there is a large number of samples. It seems reasonable to infer that he had a finite distribution in mind. I sincerely doubt he was thinking of ordinals or cardinals here.
This is just a point-of-view issue. I approached the problem by conceptually fitting a bell curve onto the data, and using information about the curve to say something neat. The other guy said something neat by considering what would happen to finite (normal-like) distributions in the limit.
By the way, the definition you gave me for "agnostic" is the definition for the noun, not the adjective. That boorish mistake doesn't make you look literate at all. And while software cannot harbor commitments, it can still be committed to a platform (by a designer). And if it is not committed, it is uncommitted. So the phrase "software agnostic" means "Uncommitted (by a designer) to any operating system." Of course, we both inferred that from his usage. You just had to raise a stink about it, out of ignorance.
1 : giving no clear indication of attitude or feeling
2 : having no clear or distinctive character
the second of which applies to software. You're right when you say that apps don't "commit," but that doesn't mean they can't be committed by their designers. (Which is to say, "commit" is both a transitive and intransitive verb.) And if a software's designer does not commit it to something, it is uncommitted. Once all of this is understood, we can rephrase Steve Jobs' comment as saying that the software was not committed by design to a particular choice in operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be naive. How are you going to justify your "basic" axioms? An appeal to human nature? An analogy? Outside of a few notable exceptions, everyone understands the concept of a logical argument. Which is why people choose their axioms to fit their agenda. This is why people disagree. Logic is easy. Convincing people is hard.
Who says it isn't? There are plenty of feedback systems in nature.
Yes, there are times when Unstable gets fixed faster than Stable. The way the whole Stable/Testing/Unstable thing works is that a package maintainer submits a package to Debian. It is placed in unstable. If it survives two weeks there, it is moved to testing. Eventually, there is a freeze and all of testing becomes stable. Now, if a bug is found in a testing package, a new package is submitted to Debian to replace it. So it ends up in Unstable for two weeks. Packages can be fast tracked from Unstable to Testing if the issue is severe.
Regarding whether Unstable got a fix at the same time as Gentoo, that depends on whether or not the package maintainer is following the source as closely as Gentoo. In theory, there should be no difference.
Yes. Downloading binaries is often much faster than compiling your own.
There has always been a stigma against intermarriage in Central and South America. This has lessened a lot in the last hundred years, but it wouldn't surprise me if the upper echelons of Argentina's economy suffered skin cancer rates as high as those in Australia. They're pasty.
Don't do it!
It's a little known fact that the plane this was modelled after was the world's first use of Elmer's white glue. It was used to glue wooden dowel and tenon joints together.
Wrong story, bucko.
Go easy on him mods -- I'm sure the front page refreshed and he didn't realize a new story came up.
In any event, there seems to be a much tighter community amongst Mac (and free software) users that makes marketting easier. The best apps spread by word of mouth much more quickly than in the windows world. If I felt like trolling, I might suggest that this is due to software elitism helping form a sense of community. Oh, what the hell. I'm a Mac user, so I'll say it anyway.
FLCL made my ADD HAPPY.
Slowpokes cause a great many accidents. The speed at which the majority of people drive is by definition the safest.
By definition? I don't think you know what that phrase means. It might be true that the speed at which most people drive is safest, but that certainly doesn't follow from the meaning of "the speed the majority of people drive" or the definition of "safest."
(Hint: if you need to perform empirical observation to verify a claim, the claim is not "true by definition.")
I hope you get modded down.
Moderators: you should mod me insightful.
And they laughed when I welcomed our mecha controlling roach overlords.
I meant something stronger than mere thermodynamic reversibility. There are many ways for water to freeze and ice to melt, and as long as the end results are the same, they're thermodynamically equivalent. The research presented here examines the reasons why one path is chosen over another. Instead of dealing with statistics, the researches are investigating particulars.
This could have all sorts of ramifications in materials science. If a good model for macroscopic melting is found, we might be able to design processes to alloy metals much more resistant to heat than are currently possible, for instance.
This means that a different process is responsible for macroscopic melting. Since macroscopic chunks of ice tend to be imperfect crystals, it stands to reason that the weak unions between crystalline structures facillitate melting.
Probably not, but instead of just having to sweep up some dry crumbs, because it lands on the buttered/jammed face, you have to clean up a sticky mess.
When the gorillas were endangered, I didn't speak up, because I'm not a gorilla.
When the condors were endangered, I didn't speak up, because I'm not a condor.
When I was endangered, no one was left to speak up for me.
Dude, didn't your grandfather fish? Didn't he tell you about "the big one"? How much do you think this guy is going to brag? Are you slowly realizing what the joke was?
That's a good question. I know Debian uses initrd to sidestep that kind of module dependency issue. You may want to look into that also.
Regarding exponential distributions -- is that really what you meant? It seems to me that you shouldn't be most likely to be infected the moment you connect. Especially since there are a large number of machines scanning more-or-less at random.
Of course, my knowledge of probability and statistics are limited to (a lot) of measure theory (leading to Descriptive Set theory) and a bit of the terminology. So I'm probably wrong.
Do you have OS X currently installed? yaboot? If so, chroot into the drive from OS X and install -- this might be tricky, but probably doable. Don't let the installer mess around with OpenFirmware. Then mess around with the yaboot.conf to make a new bootload item. I suspect that getting the right address requires a trip into OpenFirmware. There a couple of other great OpenFirmware references, but I can't seem to find any. I'll see what I can find later. Anyway, the basic idea is to get yaboot to take over bootloading duties, and make it aware of the kernel on your firewire drive. I have no idea if this will work, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
Another option would be to set up a "yaboot" file on your firewire drive like linux install discs have. Then you can just use OpenFirmware to boot the bootloader. This would be more portable since you could run linux on any mac with OF, but would be less convenient since you'd have to go into OF everytime you wanted to boot. Perhaps a combination of the two techniques would work (having a global yaboot installed on your mac so you wouldn't need OF, but also having yaboot on your firewire drive so you could boot elsewhere without touching the local disk).
This is just a point-of-view issue. I approached the problem by conceptually fitting a bell curve onto the data, and using information about the curve to say something neat. The other guy said something neat by considering what would happen to finite (normal-like) distributions in the limit.
By the way, the definition you gave me for "agnostic" is the definition for the noun, not the adjective. That boorish mistake doesn't make you look literate at all. And while software cannot harbor commitments, it can still be committed to a platform (by a designer). And if it is not committed, it is uncommitted. So the phrase "software agnostic" means "Uncommitted (by a designer) to any operating system." Of course, we both inferred that from his usage. You just had to raise a stink about it, out of ignorance.
Acutally, noncommittal has two definitions:
1 : giving no clear indication of attitude or feeling
2 : having no clear or distinctive character
the second of which applies to software. You're right when you say that apps don't "commit," but that doesn't mean they can't be committed by their designers. (Which is to say, "commit" is both a transitive and intransitive verb.) And if a software's designer does not commit it to something, it is uncommitted. Once all of this is understood, we can rephrase Steve Jobs' comment as saying that the software was not committed by design to a particular choice in operating system.
I run OS X and Linux PPC. ;-)