Well, if the lower levels of the OS are still OpenSource (darwin), what's to keep someone from running OX-X on top of darwin. Requests from the higher level to validate the hardware are intercepted and returned in such a way that the upper layers accept that the hardware is 'real apple hardware'. Now the hardware can have a public-key encryption chip in it and the upper layers can ask the chip to sign random numbers, but that code in the upper layers can by binary patched to always return success. It's easier to have hardware that is supposed to only run certain software, but even that is generally cracked (directivo, xbox, etc).
When I'm in Costco, I occasionally see some DVDs I might be interested in. But I think, how many times am I going to watch that? So I message my home computer from my phone to remind me to put it on my NetFlix queue. Music I'll buy in CDs, but videos I want to watch seldom enough that it takes a lot for me to buy one. On the other hand, we watch few enough DVDs these days that I'm considering dumping our Netflix account. I'd probably be doing that seasonally already (DirecTivo keeps us in brain-rot material) if it weren't for the fact that we've been netflix customers long enough to have 4-out at the 3-out price.
Well, I'd argue that arguing for a god that created the universe is idiotic because it doesn't solve the problem. The problem you're trying to explain is 'Where did we come from; how did this all get started?' But if you say 'Oh, God created us from clay 6000 years ago' or that 'God created the universe 13.5 bn years ago in the form of the big bang' you still don't solve the problem. Who created 'God'? I'd certainly admit that scientists can't know what happened before the big bang (hell, I'm not familiar with their evidence for the big bang itself), but arguing that some 'god' did it is equivalent to arguing that the invisible fairies on the hill got together with the trolls that live under the bridge and did it. And when you start use religion as a basis to argue for wiping a people out because they descend from a different brother than you and don't pray to mecca several times a day, I really start to have a problem with religion/belief in things that aren't supported by facts and science.
I tend to bash religion because a central tenet of most religions is to accept without question. That is, "have faith". And when you have a group of people who have been conditioned since a very young age to accept things passed down 'from a higher authority' without question it's very possible for the 'higher authority' to abuse that power.
It's a matter of sex establishing a bond that should only exist between a married couple.
Is it a good bond or a bad one? If it's a good one, why should it exist only between a married couple? If it's a bad one, why should a married couple be allowed to bond in that manner? A good friend of mine has been in a committed monogamous relationship for 20 years, but not married. Should they not be having sex? What if the marriage was only a civil ceremony, no god involved? Would the sex be 'ok' then? If a couple gets married purely for tax or immigration purposes, can they still have sex?
I'd like to see the comparison with power consumption (24x365) factored in. I've got a Cobalt Qube2 as my server (250MHz mips), but I'd like to upgrade for running more CPU intensive stuff. The thing is, I haven't found anything that I'd like to pay to run 24x365. My cobalt's power supply is only rated 36W continuous. Just the CPU on intel stuff seems to run double that. I guess the stuff that Apple is waiting for might be useful, or the Mini-ITX, but everyone claims the performance on the ITX stuff is crap. Can anyone suggest a good replacement for a Qube2? (preferably moving to a 1U rack format (not too deep either:-)).
I bought 1000 9mm rounds and the FedEx guy who delivered them said, "here's your 1000 rounds, are you going to go back east and shoot the president?" My response was of course to look around for recording devices and deny that I would _EVER_ do such a thing.
The first Resident Evil movie should get lots of props. It took the RE world, but altered the plot dramatically. It put characters in difficult, complex situations.
I think you meant to say:
Milla Jojovich was super-hot in Resident Evil, so I could ignore the bad storyline, effects, acting, plotholes, etc.
It's the "you're a criminal, we're watching you" mindset that annoys me about those. Yeah, I've seen a DVD or two, I know that copyright infringement is illegal (unreasonably so in many cases these days), but beating me about the head with a bright red warning screen isn't a good way to make me care more about "your side." I'd be more empathic about the whole thing if the screen was more like this:
Number of people who worked directly on this movie: 478 For a total of 2,453,304 person hours With an up-front investment of $XXX millions of dollars.
If you _like_ this movie (and really, why else would you illegally copy it?), and would like to see more movies like it, then pay for it and help us pay back our investors and the people who made it happen.
Of course that would never happen, and they'd have to leave out the part about 474 people making very little while 4 people raked in millions.
If you don't please your bosses boss, it's not you that will be taking heat.
Not always true. I managed to please my boss (despite not having "the numbers", because I did good work and worried about making things work right, rather than checking off boxes), but when the 4th round of layoffs came around, my Boss's boss called me to tell me I was laid off. Of course, he called my boss just before that...
Well, yes. I'm certainly no creationist (I'm a Dawkins loving atheist:-), but I would rather err on the 'safe' side, given I don't know which genes were being patented and their stability in the gene pool. I suppose that a certain gene could have been the result of a mutation in the individual being examined. That is, it could be a brand new gene. But since the researcher didn't _INVENT_ the gene, merely observed it, I'm not sure what the grounds are for a patent. If a researcher creates a new gene in the lab and inserts it into an organism, I can see the grounds for a patent. However, I believe if that organism reproduces, that's the only entity which is liable for patent infringement. If I have seeds from Monsanto and they reproduce, _I_ shouldn't be liable for patent infringement. Perhaps contract issues, but if I'm a neighbor farmer who's land was 'polluted' with said seeds, I shouldn't be liable for cultivating them. BTW, no idea why your post got modded flamebait, unless it was the creationist wackos... sigh.
Do I violate their patent by copying my genes? I don't understand the concept. I don't think I'm stupid but I can't see how people can support the idea of patenting a series of neucleotides which have been produced by humans for thousands of years. What's really being pattented here?
I don't know, I tend to sleep 6-7 hours each night, and if my computer is going to be next-to-useless (CPU pegged doing encoding) for 6 hours, I'd certainly rather have it be when I'm sleeping, rather than when I'm trying to compile and debug some code.
I think you overreacted. Checking google, it looks like there's a 62% chance (other factors aside) that being from Utah that you are mormon. I imagine that being on slashdot reduces that percentage quite a bit. However, nothing in your original posting would lead anyone on slashdot to know whether your beliefs were the 'correct' ones or not. Pointers to articles on wikipedia and perhaps the peer reviewed articles would have helped. The trouble is, there are people who fully believe that the world was created 6000 years ago, science notwithstanding. Mormons tend to lean that way, and Utah residents tend to lean toward Mormonism. No reason to fly off the handle. (There goes me karma, -1 offtopic:-)
Yeah, except for pointing out the complete lack of security and lameness of the IT department there. After all, my running process could have, at various times, opened up a connection thru the firewall to my servers at home and allowed me access into my former company. At the very least, they should have tracked down all my processes on all the servers and killed them. But hey, I'm an honest guy, and all the developers had root on all the development servers anyway, so they pretty much would have had to wipe all those boxes if they _really_ didn't trust us:-)
Refining dating science to make it more accurate doesn't mean it was 'wrong' to begin with. It's a case of increasing precision. Not to mention that the parent was talking out of his ass. Early geologists didn't have ways of doing absolute dating. That's why geologic timescales are all based on the life forms within them. However, _modern_ science can use radioactive decay to date rocks with reasonable precision to absolute ages. BTW, what would be an example of 'something that goes against the pillars of billions of years'?
Does anyone know the name of the fossilized tree that was found with upper half being different material than the bottom. If fossilization takes millions of years, the upper part would not exist. Also please explain the concept of a jelly fish being fossilized over millions of years. There was an observable discovery of a hat being completely fossilized within time of 50 years in an abundonned mine.
Probably wasting my time, but objects can be preserved by burying, and fosilized later (over longer time periods). Fosils are created by mineral replacement, usually when the object is submerged in a fluid carrying the minerals. An object could be burried by silt (to protect it), then submerged over long time periods in different solutions, resulting in different mineralization for different parts. Depending on the solution, mineralization doesn't have to take an exceeding long time. Just because fosils are old, doesn't mean they take a long time to become fosils.
Sad for you, the more scientists discover the more it agrees with the Bible.
I guess I'll ignore this, since it's so vague as to be impossible to refute.
What doesn't agree is understanding. Facts are facts, but conclusions we draw from them can just be speculations at best. Also letting falacious logic off the leash doesn't produce good results either.
Actually, conclusions can be more than speculations. They can be theories which can be tested using experiments. They can predict things. That's what's useful about science. Religion is useless because it doesn't allow us to predict anything about the world. Even if you're right and some guy in a white robe created the earth 6000 years ago, who cares? Believing that doesn't help me to predict anything about the world 'he' created. Can I use that belief when I build a bridge or engineer a drug to combat disease? Not to mention the whole 'stack of turtles' that creationists ignore. After all, if the world is so complex that it needed someone to create it, doesn't that make the creator so complex as to need something to create him?
I had one screen session up for almost a year, which would've been longer but I upgraded my kernel.
That's nothing, I got laid off from my job, forgot to kill my emacs session (running inside of screen), got brought back as a consultant months later and my screen session was still running where I left it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, maybe, if Gentoo ran on my Toaster!
Actually, it's a MIPS based RaQ2+ and a Qube2, but you get the idea..
Well, if the lower levels of the OS are still OpenSource (darwin), what's to keep someone from running OX-X on top of darwin. Requests from the higher level to validate the hardware are intercepted and returned in such a way that the upper layers accept that the hardware is 'real apple hardware'. Now the hardware can have a public-key encryption chip in it and the upper layers can ask the chip to sign random numbers, but that code in the upper layers can by binary patched to always return success.
It's easier to have hardware that is supposed to only run certain software, but even that is generally cracked (directivo, xbox, etc).
When I'm in Costco, I occasionally see some DVDs I might be interested in. But I think, how many times am I going to watch that? So I message my home computer from my phone to remind me to put it on my NetFlix queue.
Music I'll buy in CDs, but videos I want to watch seldom enough that it takes a lot for me to buy one.
On the other hand, we watch few enough DVDs these days that I'm considering dumping our Netflix account. I'd probably be doing that seasonally already (DirecTivo keeps us in brain-rot material) if it weren't for the fact that we've been netflix customers long enough to have 4-out at the 3-out price.
Well, I'd argue that arguing for a god that created the universe is idiotic because it doesn't solve the problem. The problem you're trying to explain is 'Where did we come from; how did this all get started?' But if you say 'Oh, God created us from clay 6000 years ago' or that 'God created the universe 13.5 bn years ago in the form of the big bang' you still don't solve the problem. Who created 'God'? I'd certainly admit that scientists can't know what happened before the big bang (hell, I'm not familiar with their evidence for the big bang itself), but arguing that some 'god' did it is equivalent to arguing that the invisible fairies on the hill got together with the trolls that live under the bridge and did it. And when you start use religion as a basis to argue for wiping a people out because they descend from a different brother than you and don't pray to mecca several times a day, I really start to have a problem with religion/belief in things that aren't supported by facts and science.
What they have done for software stability, user-friendliness and security.
Or better yet, yell at the kid, "god damnit my games won't run anymore", and wipe the machine and reinstall windows.
Oh and bitch-slap the kid and tell him about the hardware keystroke logger you've got installed...
I tend to bash religion because a central tenet of most religions is to accept without question. That is, "have faith". And when you have a group of people who have been conditioned since a very young age to accept things passed down 'from a higher authority' without question it's very possible for the 'higher authority' to abuse that power.
It's a matter of sex establishing a bond that should only exist between a married couple.
Is it a good bond or a bad one? If it's a good one, why should it exist only between a married couple? If it's a bad one, why should a married couple be allowed to bond in that manner?
A good friend of mine has been in a committed monogamous relationship for 20 years, but not married. Should they not be having sex? What if the marriage was only a civil ceremony, no god involved? Would the sex be 'ok' then? If a couple gets married purely for tax or immigration purposes, can they still have sex?
I'd like to see the comparison with power consumption (24x365) factored in. I've got a Cobalt Qube2 as my server (250MHz mips), but I'd like to upgrade for running more CPU intensive stuff. The thing is, I haven't found anything that I'd like to pay to run 24x365. My cobalt's power supply is only rated 36W continuous. Just the CPU on intel stuff seems to run double that. I guess the stuff that Apple is waiting for might be useful, or the Mini-ITX, but everyone claims the performance on the ITX stuff is crap.
Can anyone suggest a good replacement for a Qube2? (preferably moving to a 1U rack format (not too deep either
I bought 1000 9mm rounds and the FedEx guy who delivered them said, "here's your 1000 rounds, are you going to go back east and shoot the president?" My response was of course to look around for recording devices and deny that I would _EVER_ do such a thing.
But I wouldn't cry a river if someone else did...
The first Resident Evil movie should get lots of props. It took the RE world, but altered the plot dramatically. It put characters in difficult, complex situations.
I think you meant to say:
Milla Jojovich was super-hot in Resident Evil, so I could ignore the bad storyline, effects, acting, plotholes, etc.
It's the "you're a criminal, we're watching you" mindset that annoys me about those. Yeah, I've seen a DVD or two, I know that copyright infringement is illegal (unreasonably so in many cases these days), but beating me about the head with a bright red warning screen isn't a good way to make me care more about "your side."
I'd be more empathic about the whole thing if the screen was more like this:
Number of people who worked directly on this movie: 478
For a total of 2,453,304 person hours
With an up-front investment of $XXX millions of dollars.
If you _like_ this movie (and really, why else would you illegally copy it?), and would like to see more movies like it, then pay for it and help us pay back our investors and the people who made it happen.
Of course that would never happen, and they'd have to leave out the part about 474 people making very little while 4 people raked in millions.
It's a phone, right? Most phones these days do voice dialing. So why not use voice recognition for a voice password?
If you don't please your bosses boss, it's not you that will be taking heat.
Not always true. I managed to please my boss (despite not having "the numbers", because I did good work and worried about making things work right, rather than checking off boxes), but when the 4th round of layoffs came around, my Boss's boss called me to tell me I was laid off. Of course, he called my boss just before that...
Huh? Circles don't have volume, only area. :-)
</pedantic>
Well, yes. I'm certainly no creationist (I'm a Dawkins loving atheist :-), but I would rather err on the 'safe' side, given I don't know which genes were being patented and their stability in the gene pool. I suppose that a certain gene could have been the result of a mutation in the individual being examined. That is, it could be a brand new gene. But since the researcher didn't _INVENT_ the gene, merely observed it, I'm not sure what the grounds are for a patent. If a researcher creates a new gene in the lab and inserts it into an organism, I can see the grounds for a patent. However, I believe if that organism reproduces, that's the only entity which is liable for patent infringement. If I have seeds from Monsanto and they reproduce, _I_ shouldn't be liable for patent infringement. Perhaps contract issues, but if I'm a neighbor farmer who's land was 'polluted' with said seeds, I shouldn't be liable for cultivating them.
BTW, no idea why your post got modded flamebait, unless it was the creationist wackos... sigh.
Do I violate their patent by copying my genes? I don't understand the concept. I don't think I'm stupid but I can't see how people can support the idea of patenting a series of neucleotides which have been produced by humans for thousands of years. What's really being pattented here?
Sonos makes some nice stuff. I worked with the founder at his previous company, and he's an Engineer who does things right.
l
http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7647366603.htm
BTW, 6 hours is not over night.
I don't know, I tend to sleep 6-7 hours each night, and if my computer is going to be next-to-useless (CPU pegged doing encoding) for 6 hours, I'd certainly rather have it be when I'm sleeping, rather than when I'm trying to compile and debug some code.
I think you overreacted. Checking google, it looks like there's a 62% chance (other factors aside) that being from Utah that you are mormon. I imagine that being on slashdot reduces that percentage quite a bit. However, nothing in your original posting would lead anyone on slashdot to know whether your beliefs were the 'correct' ones or not. Pointers to articles on wikipedia and perhaps the peer reviewed articles would have helped. :-)
The trouble is, there are people who fully believe that the world was created 6000 years ago, science notwithstanding. Mormons tend to lean that way, and Utah residents tend to lean toward Mormonism.
No reason to fly off the handle.
(There goes me karma, -1 offtopic
Yeah, except for pointing out the complete lack of security and lameness of the IT department there. After all, my running process could have, at various times, opened up a connection thru the firewall to my servers at home and allowed me access into my former company. At the very least, they should have tracked down all my processes on all the servers and killed them. But hey, I'm an honest guy, and all the developers had root on all the development servers anyway, so they pretty much would have had to wipe all those boxes if they _really_ didn't trust us :-)
Swallow it sideways, it doesn't come thru as fast then...
Refining dating science to make it more accurate doesn't mean it was 'wrong' to begin with. It's a case of increasing precision. Not to mention that the parent was talking out of his ass. Early geologists didn't have ways of doing absolute dating. That's why geologic timescales are all based on the life forms within them. However, _modern_ science can use radioactive decay to date rocks with reasonable precision to absolute ages.
BTW, what would be an example of 'something that goes against the pillars of billions of years'?
Does anyone know the name of the fossilized tree that was found with upper half being different material than the bottom. If fossilization takes millions of years, the upper part would not exist. Also please explain the concept of a jelly fish being fossilized over millions of years. There was an observable discovery of a hat being completely fossilized within time of 50 years in an abundonned mine.
Probably wasting my time, but objects can be preserved by burying, and fosilized later (over longer time periods). Fosils are created by mineral replacement, usually when the object is submerged in a fluid carrying the minerals. An object could be burried by silt (to protect it), then submerged over long time periods in different solutions, resulting in different mineralization for different parts. Depending on the solution, mineralization doesn't have to take an exceeding long time. Just because fosils are old, doesn't mean they take a long time to become fosils.
Sad for you, the more scientists discover the more it agrees with the Bible.
I guess I'll ignore this, since it's so vague as to be impossible to refute.
What doesn't agree is understanding. Facts are facts, but conclusions we draw from them can just be speculations at best. Also letting falacious logic off the leash doesn't produce good results either.
Actually, conclusions can be more than speculations. They can be theories which can be tested using experiments. They can predict things. That's what's useful about science. Religion is useless because it doesn't allow us to predict anything about the world. Even if you're right and some guy in a white robe created the earth 6000 years ago, who cares? Believing that doesn't help me to predict anything about the world 'he' created. Can I use that belief when I build a bridge or engineer a drug to combat disease? Not to mention the whole 'stack of turtles' that creationists ignore. After all, if the world is so complex that it needed someone to create it, doesn't that make the creator so complex as to need something to create him?
I had one screen session up for almost a year, which would've been longer but I upgraded my kernel.
That's nothing, I got laid off from my job, forgot to kill my emacs session (running inside of screen), got brought back as a consultant months later and my screen session was still running where I left it.