I like Debian a lot. But I really wish their installation "packages" were a little finer grained. I'm referring to the point in the installation where the installer asks what role the machine is supposed to fill. If you declare that you're going to use the machine as a desktop, the installer installs something like 900 packages, most of which I have no interest in. And if I don't set it up as a desktop, I have to go and run apt by myself to install something like 150 packages. Getting on topic, Ubuntu seems even worse in this regard. It's a huge pain in the dick.
If the answer was immediately obvious to you, I suggest that you know just enough to be dangerous. Let h be a hash function. It is not in general the case that h(x) = ' ' (the empty string) if x is the empty string. Indeed, MD5(' ') is d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e. This detail makes editing/etc/passwd or/etc/shadow by hand seem like a dead end.
Knowing that making the hash entry blank lets you authenticate without entering a password absolutely requires you to know implementation trivia. Google is your friend, especially when you have work to do.
"How do you reset the root password on a server when you don't know the current root password?" These are really basic questions, and yet the majority of candidates have no clue how to answer them.
I would cut people a little slack for not knowing this one. I've never had a need to reset my root password (I've been administering a publicly available server for several years), and so I didn't know how to do it until I googled it. This is just the sort of trivia I would expect a sysadmin to google.
Who cares about what words mean? The meaning of things is defined by interpretation - it's not reality in the slightest.
We, as humans, only have epistemic access to our sensations and not the objects of our sensations. We are constantly interpreting sense data. The supposition that there is a world "out there" that "is reality" is folly, since we cannot verify
its existence. -- does there need to be an 'outside'? No. Our minds are known to create states subjectively indistinguishable from our normal state. Indeed, the mind could be creating your sensation from nothing.
its "truth."
We could be in a matrix-like scenario right now. Robots could be sticking probes in your brain and making you see 'red.' Does that invalidate your experience of red? No. Experience qua sensation is inviolable. There is no question that you saw red. It is the 'source' or 'object' of such a sensation that is in question.
If you think you have a novel argument against Cartesian skepticism, I suggest you get it published in a reputable philosophy journal. I sincerely doubt your argument holds water. You sound like a teenager who got into his late father's stash of Ayn Rand.
Mr. Anonymous Coward,
As someone who was once a slashdot moderator, but was stricken from that capacity by a drunken 'editor,' I apologize for your poor moderation. Had I not moderated a post against one of the 'editor's wishes once a fyew years ago, I would be able to give your post an 'underrated' mod, but the 'editors' have made it impossible for me to moderate again. I wish to apologize yet again for my idiot 'peers', who obviously don't get your humorous joke. Perhaps the editors should work on getting rid of 'moderators' like these instead of those who don't buy into their personal ideologies.
Well, I went through B&M's "A Survey of Modern Algebra" as a freshman to supplement the "Introductory Analysis" courseware. I was indeed referring to their "Algebra" when I said I went through it during my semester in Abstract Algebra. I'm also familiar with both of Rotman's works, though I went through "Advanced Modern Algebra." I glanced through his group theory book at one point because a friend was writing his thesis on group representations in the theory of Lie groups.
I much prefer analysis (and the other "alternating quantifiers" branches) to algebra, so this whole argument may have been caused by my irrational bias. In particular, you don't get to things like algebraic topology in the analysis track except as a supplement to relatively advanced analysis. But I did like Hall very much. There are some very nice exercises in that book.
You're just trolling.
Rotman is hard, but Birkhoff Maclane is obviously an undergraduate text. I went through that one (and Hall) as a supplement to Gallian during a semester class. Dummit & Foote is 1100 pages, and covers material on algebraic geometry and homological algebra. It's obviously meant for a first year graduate student.
Dude, what are you talking about? That's clearly an undergraduate textbook in Abstract Algebra. It covers everything you need to know on the topic before going into graduate school. Or are you from the "If it's not Dummit & Foote, it's not abstract algebra" school of thought?
It's a real shame that you've had bad experiences with them. This is one (relatively minor) reason why conglomerates are bad for the consumer. Sony owns something like five audio equipment firms, most of which are crappy. Their boutique audio firm is actually really good. But they all get a bad rap since they can't differentiate themselves. The same thing goes on in the video market.
OK, that's not exactly right. Their plain old consumer line used to be decent, but quality has slipped in the last 10 years. Basically, if your AV receiver has a useless LCD interface or other gimmicky shit that appeals to upwardly mobile young people, you're gonna get reamed. Their lines get progressively better until you hit the Broadcast line of equipment, and finally their Boutique line. But you do pay a premium since these things are produced on a much smaller scale (and with better components)
In today's world, at least in America, people are all to ready to attempt to accomplish through the courts what they can't do through the legislature or on their own through such techniques as boycotting or simply speaking out. If Sony violated a law, let them be held accountable. However, I'm not so sure that they did (although, not being a lawyer, I can't say for sure). If they didn't, lets leave the courts out for once.
The people are exercising their legal rights. The courts decide if a law has been broken. So shut the fuck up, dumb ass.
If you have any interest at all in OS X, you should check out Amit Singh's article on it at http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/. It doesn't go into detail, but it drops enough names to give you a running start. Apple's "Conceptual" documentation is very good too.
Are you kidding? There are plenty of examples of small communities ostracizing protestors through legal and illegal means. City dwellers are more-or-less immune to such phenomena since the local police force represents a broad cross section of the city's diverse population. Basically, the more a group of people agrees, the harder they'll fight dissidents.
However I've yet to see an AC post on slashdot post as an AC because their government is denying them free speech. Instead I see slashdotters posting anonymously so they can flame.
Sure, but the government isn't the only entity that tries to silence the minority. Employers often censure employees for their unpopular opinions. We've both read slashdot long enough to see that kind of AC post. As long as some people have power over others, anonymous speech is an important component of free speech. (I don't mean this in the constitutional sense of 'free speech,' but only in the sense of being free to speak)
Sorry for coming on so strong before. To be honest, it doesn't seem to be free speech that you support by (locally) silencing the AC's. It's accountability of speech. That's completely fair, but can easily slide into incompatibility with free speech.
Support free speech. Don't post anonymously. If you are anonymous, don't bother replying to my comments, I won't see it
Don't be a fucking moron. Anonymous speech is a very important part of our ability to speak freely. If you really support free speech, you'd be reading at -1, like I do.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what makes it Unstable.
I like Debian a lot. But I really wish their installation "packages" were a little finer grained. I'm referring to the point in the installation where the installer asks what role the machine is supposed to fill. If you declare that you're going to use the machine as a desktop, the installer installs something like 900 packages, most of which I have no interest in. And if I don't set it up as a desktop, I have to go and run apt by myself to install something like 150 packages. Getting on topic, Ubuntu seems even worse in this regard. It's a huge pain in the dick.
I'm pretty sure a Canon copy machine would fit inside his anus.
If the answer was immediately obvious to you, I suggest that you know just enough to be dangerous. Let h be a hash function. It is not in general the case that h(x) = ' ' (the empty string) if x is the empty string. Indeed, MD5(' ') is d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e. This detail makes editing /etc/passwd or /etc/shadow by hand seem like a dead end.
Knowing that making the hash entry blank lets you authenticate without entering a password absolutely requires you to know implementation trivia. Google is your friend, especially when you have work to do.
Indeed. I'm going to start making google prank call my friends immediately!
I would cut people a little slack for not knowing this one. I've never had a need to reset my root password (I've been administering a publicly available server for several years), and so I didn't know how to do it until I googled it. This is just the sort of trivia I would expect a sysadmin to google.
We, as humans, only have epistemic access to our sensations and not the objects of our sensations. We are constantly interpreting sense data. The supposition that there is a world "out there" that "is reality" is folly, since we cannot verify
We could be in a matrix-like scenario right now. Robots could be sticking probes in your brain and making you see 'red.' Does that invalidate your experience of red? No. Experience qua sensation is inviolable. There is no question that you saw red. It is the 'source' or 'object' of such a sensation that is in question.
If you think you have a novel argument against Cartesian skepticism, I suggest you get it published in a reputable philosophy journal. I sincerely doubt your argument holds water. You sound like a teenager who got into his late father's stash of Ayn Rand.
Mr. Anonymous Coward, As someone who was once a slashdot moderator, but was stricken from that capacity by a drunken 'editor,' I apologize for your poor moderation. Had I not moderated a post against one of the 'editor's wishes once a fyew years ago, I would be able to give your post an 'underrated' mod, but the 'editors' have made it impossible for me to moderate again. I wish to apologize yet again for my idiot 'peers', who obviously don't get your humorous joke. Perhaps the editors should work on getting rid of 'moderators' like these instead of those who don't buy into their personal ideologies.
OK, that was kind of cool. I was expecting it to be a JAPH, though. How hard would it be to modify?
Perl did it first.
I was under the impression that they asked the prisoner which method of execution they prefer. I would probably opt for firing squad.
Well, I went through B&M's "A Survey of Modern Algebra" as a freshman to supplement the "Introductory Analysis" courseware. I was indeed referring to their "Algebra" when I said I went through it during my semester in Abstract Algebra. I'm also familiar with both of Rotman's works, though I went through "Advanced Modern Algebra." I glanced through his group theory book at one point because a friend was writing his thesis on group representations in the theory of Lie groups.
I much prefer analysis (and the other "alternating quantifiers" branches) to algebra, so this whole argument may have been caused by my irrational bias. In particular, you don't get to things like algebraic topology in the analysis track except as a supplement to relatively advanced analysis. But I did like Hall very much. There are some very nice exercises in that book.
You're just trolling. Rotman is hard, but Birkhoff Maclane is obviously an undergraduate text. I went through that one (and Hall) as a supplement to Gallian during a semester class. Dummit & Foote is 1100 pages, and covers material on algebraic geometry and homological algebra. It's obviously meant for a first year graduate student.
Especially with a punchline like that.
Dude, what are you talking about? That's clearly an undergraduate textbook in Abstract Algebra. It covers everything you need to know on the topic before going into graduate school. Or are you from the "If it's not Dummit & Foote, it's not abstract algebra" school of thought?
?
That book was easy. It's a freshmen book.
That's why it was a trick question. ;-)
Yeah, that one's easy. It's not even hard to prove. Here's a better one: prove or disprove the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis from ZF.
It's a real shame that you've had bad experiences with them. This is one (relatively minor) reason why conglomerates are bad for the consumer. Sony owns something like five audio equipment firms, most of which are crappy. Their boutique audio firm is actually really good. But they all get a bad rap since they can't differentiate themselves. The same thing goes on in the video market.
OK, that's not exactly right. Their plain old consumer line used to be decent, but quality has slipped in the last 10 years. Basically, if your AV receiver has a useless LCD interface or other gimmicky shit that appeals to upwardly mobile young people, you're gonna get reamed. Their lines get progressively better until you hit the Broadcast line of equipment, and finally their Boutique line. But you do pay a premium since these things are produced on a much smaller scale (and with better components)
The people are exercising their legal rights. The courts decide if a law has been broken. So shut the fuck up, dumb ass.
You monster!
If you have any interest at all in OS X, you should check out Amit Singh's article on it at http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/. It doesn't go into detail, but it drops enough names to give you a running start. Apple's "Conceptual" documentation is very good too.
On a national scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
Sure, but the government isn't the only entity that tries to silence the minority. Employers often censure employees for their unpopular opinions. We've both read slashdot long enough to see that kind of AC post. As long as some people have power over others, anonymous speech is an important component of free speech. (I don't mean this in the constitutional sense of 'free speech,' but only in the sense of being free to speak)
Sorry for coming on so strong before. To be honest, it doesn't seem to be free speech that you support by (locally) silencing the AC's. It's accountability of speech. That's completely fair, but can easily slide into incompatibility with free speech.
Don't be a fucking moron. Anonymous speech is a very important part of our ability to speak freely. If you really support free speech, you'd be reading at -1, like I do.
Fucking idiot.