Debian and Ubuntu are diverging very quickly. Sure, they both run the linux kernel and use the apt-suite to manage packages, but they don't share.deb repositories. This makes cross distribution package management a pain in the ass. A hypothetical example: A program A depends on a program B to be installed. Debian calls B "C" and Ubuntu calls it "D". Installing C won't satisfy A's dependency if A is from the Ubuntu repository.
Debian isn't even really an operating system. I hear that there's a FreeBSD version of Debian in the works, and I was briefly involved in an effort to port Debian to OS X. (The project didn't really get off the ground -- fink had a good start on us and are doing a pretty good job.) Debian is the apt-suite and the effort of thousands of volunteers to populate the repository.
They've been probably waiting for the next Debian Stable, but Ubuntu is great right now so it makes sense.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the new Debian stable is coming out in like two weeks. If they've waited this long, and waited until after Debian's announcement, it really doesn't make sense for them to go with Ubuntu.
Regarding AppleTalk -- the troube is that older AppleTalk implementations were done with LocalTalk, an early TCP/IP incompatible communications protocol. Apple later came up with a tunnelling scheme. I'm not really sure if they've stayed with that scheme or changed their protocol again. In the end, your symptoms all make sense. LocalTalk traffic can't get past the router, because the router doesn't know how to deal with that stuff.
Obviously, in this Eurocentric world of ours, a thing is discovered if and only if it is known to Americans.
Silliness aside, we might say that this scientist discovered the Kha-Nyou independently, in much the same way that the Columbus discovered America after that Viking who's name I forget, (possibly China), and the Native Americans.
I'm sure they manufacture hundreds of millions if not billions of processors/ICs/doodads/trinkets every year. (I don't have any specific numbers, but it's just trivia anyway). But they can only manufacture profitably if their fab plants are operational. As it stands, IBM is going to have to retool at least three times in the foreseeable future. This is very time consuming.
Remember, IBM had trouble keeping up with demand for the Apple G5 because of retooling issues. To use a computing analogy, we might say that IBM isn't limited by bandwidth, but is limited instead by latency.
I'm sure IBM has thought about this far more than I have. And I don't intend this to be an argument against your main point. I just wanted to clarify what I meant. Have a nice evening!
Ramsi Yousef was a chemical engineer. I hate to say this, but he is (was? -- I haven't been following that story lately) a prolific innovator in the field of terrorism. I'm sure he's come up with hundreds of ways to kill us all. The terrorists don't need to search google for ideas. They already have them.
The only role the internet can play in terror is in facilitating communication. This scheme will not help with that, for the reasons you've provided, among others.
Well, IBM doesn't need MS, since they don't make personal computers anymore. I'm sure IBM appreciates this XBox business, but they only have a limited capacity to manufacture processors. And they're going to be really busy when they begin mass producing the Cell, the new powerpc, etc.
There was a time when I was sympathetic to the claim that everything is alive. In particular, there are plenty of inorganic self-sustaining finite cellular automata in nature. Just about every complex system in nature has the computational power of a finite cellular automaton. And there are a few good reasons to suspect that the process of change in a complex system is what constitutes life. (I don't want to get into those -- they're pretty complicated and very philosophically sophisticated). Now I think it's just either linguistic revisionism or just flaky. I mean, the purpose of philosophy isn't to re-define common terms. It's to describe the nature of things.
I'm certainly not accusing you of flakiness, for you admit that it is a highly hypothetical claim, and I don't even know you. It just sounds like somthing a hippie would say.:-D
Life is not defined by "having a metabolism." One could define life that way, but it would capture lots of things we wouldn't consider alive. Fire, for instance, has a metabolism. Even these robots, whom you say are not alive, have a metabolism. Moreover, this definition misses entities that debatably are alive, such as biological viruses.
It is interesting to note that every definition proposed so far misses things that are "intuitively alive" and includes things that intuitively aren't. There are plenty of great books on the Philosophy of Life out there -- I suggest you read some.
From TF blurb:
The total die area of the 1Gb chip is 31 square millimeters... When Matrix moves to 90nm process technology, it should be possible to manufacture a 8Gb memory chip on a reasonable sized (i.e. cheap) die.
These things are tiny too. If you make a cartridge-sized one (even of the lower density variety) you can have a LOT of storage.
This sounds like a good idea, but the studios could simply offer copies of their vaulted films for sale for unrealistically high prices (say, 50 billion dollars for a copy of an obscure movie) and their copyrights would never expire.
I didn't just read the parent, I wrote the parent. I suggest you read it more carefully. In particular, the line that reads As long as these microphones are technologically unsuitable to record conversations, this is a great thing.
I submit that you are conflating privacy and anonymity. You, by definition, have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Your actions can be monitored by anyone with an interest in them. The fact that no one does is a consequence of the fact that you are anonymous. No one cares what you do or say because you're just not important enough. A celebrity, for instance, would very likely be monitored by reporters in public. Moreover, if a reporter records a celebrity breaking the law, the recording will be admissible evidence in all jurisdictions I'm familiar with.
Now consider a case where you are in a football stadium and you tell a friend that your genital warts are getting worse. Suppose, moreover, that a friend of your S.O. whom you don't know overhears this and tells your S.O. about your conversation. You would be a fool to expect privacy in such a situation, for you are in public.
Now, you might have two complaints. The first is that your S.O.'s friend was not an agent of the state. As a matter of empirical fact, however, undercover police officers are sanctioned in the US, and I suspect most other countries. The second might be that you, as a matter of empirical fact, wouldn't say anything incriminating with untrusted people around. You would have a defacto private conversation, even in a public space. Unfortunately, the technology to circumvent that has existed for several decades. Moreover, it is legal for private citizens to use -- cf. the celebrity case above vis a vis telephoto lenses and parabolic reflector microphones.
All in all, you might have a reasonable expectation of anonymity in public -- especially if you're a nobody. And anonymity might lead to privacy in certain circumstances. In fact, it usually does. But that does not translate into having a reasonable expectation of privacy.
FFS, please, tell me more of what I should feel. Since you're obviously a busybody, I'll tell you the whole story:
Portland city ordinances allow for 50 dB at the property line after 10 pm. (I believe it's 55 dB before 10 pm). I didn't break 50 dB. The neighbor simply called 911 (!) on me without complaining. At 9:55 pm.
To put this in perspective, 50 dB is the volume of a normal conversation. It is very unreasonable to expect your neighbors not to converse after 10 pm. By transitivity of loudness, it's unreasonable to call 911 on your neighbors for playing music below that threshhold.
A few days later, I sent my neighbor a polite letter stating what I just told you. And telling her how the cops just railroaded me. She agreed that she was being unreasonable and apologized. Unfortunately, she did not offer to pay for the fine. Though she did promise to complain to me instead of calling the police in the future. Now, please, tell me more of what you think I should feel.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops, you're right. I always conflate AppleTalk and AppleShare, which lead to my confused post.
Debian and Ubuntu are diverging very quickly. Sure, they both run the linux kernel and use the apt-suite to manage packages, but they don't share .deb repositories. This makes cross distribution package management a pain in the ass. A hypothetical example: A program A depends on a program B to be installed. Debian calls B "C" and Ubuntu calls it "D". Installing C won't satisfy A's dependency if A is from the Ubuntu repository.
Debian isn't even really an operating system. I hear that there's a FreeBSD version of Debian in the works, and I was briefly involved in an effort to port Debian to OS X. (The project didn't really get off the ground -- fink had a good start on us and are doing a pretty good job.) Debian is the apt-suite and the effort of thousands of volunteers to populate the repository.
I hope he lets us know next time he goes camping. I'd love to submit his news page to the front page.
Or maybe he'll just find some internet connectivity and ssh in.
They've been probably waiting for the next Debian Stable, but Ubuntu is great right now so it makes sense.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the new Debian stable is coming out in like two weeks. If they've waited this long, and waited until after Debian's announcement, it really doesn't make sense for them to go with Ubuntu.
Regarding AppleTalk -- the troube is that older AppleTalk implementations were done with LocalTalk, an early TCP/IP incompatible communications protocol. Apple later came up with a tunnelling scheme. I'm not really sure if they've stayed with that scheme or changed their protocol again. In the end, your symptoms all make sense. LocalTalk traffic can't get past the router, because the router doesn't know how to deal with that stuff.
This has got to be a problem that the Slashdot community has run into, before. Any suggestions?
Yes. The dot-com boom ended several years ago. Ditch this company and become a waiter, before you go retroactively bankrupt.
Because not every would-be scientist wants to become a biologist.
Obviously, in this Eurocentric world of ours, a thing is discovered if and only if it is known to Americans.
Silliness aside, we might say that this scientist discovered the Kha-Nyou independently, in much the same way that the Columbus discovered America after that Viking who's name I forget, (possibly China), and the Native Americans.
You know one hell of a lot of random, unimportant trivia. Are you the guy behind rotten.com?
I'm sure they manufacture hundreds of millions if not billions of processors/ICs/doodads/trinkets every year. (I don't have any specific numbers, but it's just trivia anyway). But they can only manufacture profitably if their fab plants are operational. As it stands, IBM is going to have to retool at least three times in the foreseeable future. This is very time consuming.
Remember, IBM had trouble keeping up with demand for the Apple G5 because of retooling issues. To use a computing analogy, we might say that IBM isn't limited by bandwidth, but is limited instead by latency.
I'm sure IBM has thought about this far more than I have. And I don't intend this to be an argument against your main point. I just wanted to clarify what I meant. Have a nice evening!
Ramsi Yousef was a chemical engineer. I hate to say this, but he is (was? -- I haven't been following that story lately) a prolific innovator in the field of terrorism. I'm sure he's come up with hundreds of ways to kill us all. The terrorists don't need to search google for ideas. They already have them.
The only role the internet can play in terror is in facilitating communication. This scheme will not help with that, for the reasons you've provided, among others.
Well, IBM doesn't need MS, since they don't make personal computers anymore. I'm sure IBM appreciates this XBox business, but they only have a limited capacity to manufacture processors. And they're going to be really busy when they begin mass producing the Cell, the new powerpc, etc.
And in oppressive regimes, so do dissidents.
There was a time when I was sympathetic to the claim that everything is alive. In particular, there are plenty of inorganic self-sustaining finite cellular automata in nature. Just about every complex system in nature has the computational power of a finite cellular automaton. And there are a few good reasons to suspect that the process of change in a complex system is what constitutes life. (I don't want to get into those -- they're pretty complicated and very philosophically sophisticated). Now I think it's just either linguistic revisionism or just flaky. I mean, the purpose of philosophy isn't to re-define common terms. It's to describe the nature of things.
:-D
I'm certainly not accusing you of flakiness, for you admit that it is a highly hypothetical claim, and I don't even know you. It just sounds like somthing a hippie would say.
Life is not defined by "having a metabolism." One could define life that way, but it would capture lots of things we wouldn't consider alive. Fire, for instance, has a metabolism. Even these robots, whom you say are not alive, have a metabolism. Moreover, this definition misses entities that debatably are alive, such as biological viruses.
It is interesting to note that every definition proposed so far misses things that are "intuitively alive" and includes things that intuitively aren't. There are plenty of great books on the Philosophy of Life out there -- I suggest you read some.
There's nothing particularly right-wing-ed about this conspiracy.
Nahh, there's only so many iCopulate jokes I can take in a day. One sounds about right.
This was posted more than 20 minutes ago. Looks like nobody cares!
From TF blurb: The total die area of the 1Gb chip is 31 square millimeters... When Matrix moves to 90nm process technology, it should be possible to manufacture a 8Gb memory chip on a reasonable sized (i.e. cheap) die.
These things are tiny too. If you make a cartridge-sized one (even of the lower density variety) you can have a LOT of storage.
I can afford Tiger!
Oh, wait....
Seriously, does anyone know if it would be difficult to swap out the Darwin component of Panther with Darwin 8?
This sounds like a good idea, but the studios could simply offer copies of their vaulted films for sale for unrealistically high prices (say, 50 billion dollars for a copy of an obscure movie) and their copyrights would never expire.
When you need to stretch so much, you only serve to weaken your own position.
Good use of rhetoric. Too bad that's all it is.
I didn't just read the parent, I wrote the parent. I suggest you read it more carefully. In particular, the line that reads As long as these microphones are technologically unsuitable to record conversations, this is a great thing.
I submit that you are conflating privacy and anonymity. You, by definition, have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Your actions can be monitored by anyone with an interest in them. The fact that no one does is a consequence of the fact that you are anonymous. No one cares what you do or say because you're just not important enough. A celebrity, for instance, would very likely be monitored by reporters in public. Moreover, if a reporter records a celebrity breaking the law, the recording will be admissible evidence in all jurisdictions I'm familiar with.
Now consider a case where you are in a football stadium and you tell a friend that your genital warts are getting worse. Suppose, moreover, that a friend of your S.O. whom you don't know overhears this and tells your S.O. about your conversation. You would be a fool to expect privacy in such a situation, for you are in public.
Now, you might have two complaints. The first is that your S.O.'s friend was not an agent of the state. As a matter of empirical fact, however, undercover police officers are sanctioned in the US, and I suspect most other countries. The second might be that you, as a matter of empirical fact, wouldn't say anything incriminating with untrusted people around. You would have a defacto private conversation, even in a public space. Unfortunately, the technology to circumvent that has existed for several decades. Moreover, it is legal for private citizens to use -- cf. the celebrity case above vis a vis telephoto lenses and parabolic reflector microphones.
All in all, you might have a reasonable expectation of anonymity in public -- especially if you're a nobody. And anonymity might lead to privacy in certain circumstances. In fact, it usually does. But that does not translate into having a reasonable expectation of privacy.
FFS, please, tell me more of what I should feel. Since you're obviously a busybody, I'll tell you the whole story:
Portland city ordinances allow for 50 dB at the property line after 10 pm. (I believe it's 55 dB before 10 pm). I didn't break 50 dB. The neighbor simply called 911 (!) on me without complaining. At 9:55 pm.
To put this in perspective, 50 dB is the volume of a normal conversation. It is very unreasonable to expect your neighbors not to converse after 10 pm. By transitivity of loudness, it's unreasonable to call 911 on your neighbors for playing music below that threshhold.
A few days later, I sent my neighbor a polite letter stating what I just told you. And telling her how the cops just railroaded me. She agreed that she was being unreasonable and apologized. Unfortunately, she did not offer to pay for the fine. Though she did promise to complain to me instead of calling the police in the future. Now, please, tell me more of what you think I should feel.