If you're being sarcastic and trying to psychoanalyse my viewpoint based on my post: give up. You won't discern my position from the GP. You're the one spouting off here; I was only correcting a serious error.
:p Well, I don't mean to make any kind of serious point about Boll, but the logical fallacy of "You can't deny me my right to an opinion" (and other variants) is actually very annoying.
Wow, I really fucked this post up. I'm guessing a " " came out as a "". This whole thing isn't all meant to be in bold. I'll have to start using the preview.
To loosely paraphrase a well known quote, I may hate his movies, but I defend his right to make them and for people to watch them.
There's a number of issues there.
No one notable ever said that. Voltaire famously did not say it; it has supposedly come about as a summary of his work.
This is typically suppose to involve speech and not _actual_ speech (yelling loudly on a crowded bus is annoying) but metaphorical speech; saying what you want (that Uwe Boll is a terrible filmmaker). It's not supposed to mean "I dislike BloodRayne (2006) but I defend to the death Uwe Boll's ability to spend $25 million to make a film that makes only $1.5 million on its opening weekend!"!
You're misinterpretting the context. The quote is meant to refer to the legal level of "ability". It does not make reference to moral values; I'm sure Voltaire would have opposed those who denied the holocaust and would rather they didn't speak, but he did not favour banning them by law. The point is that prohibitions by law (with certain exclusions) are a mistake. The quote is supposed to mean "When you dislike something, dislike it, but don't ban it". It's not supposed to be a moral carte blanche that allows a director to get away with making a shit film.
This bad leadership has root causes. Incentives to sociopathic management behavior are intrinsic to the capitalist system. In the short term this psychopathic exploitation pays off. Anything with negative effects that manifest after the next quarter's numbers doesn't matter. By that time the perrpetrators have been rewarded and have moved on. Don't assume that better efficiency can fix an inherently corrupt, dysfunctional system. Making the trains run on time has been tried before. Good thing the Allies came along to blow up the tracks.
First and foremost, Mussolini did not make the trains run on time. The only major work done was before he took power, and even then, eyewitness accounts do not agree that the trains were of any decent quality. This is a complete myth, and it a great example of the horrendous liars that 20th Century fascists were and still are.
Secondary; what you are calling the capitalist system is not the capitalist system. The "capitalist system" doesn't have a rule for "next quarter's numbers". The government regulations that encourage an overreliance on short term measures did not appear in The Wealth of Nations. They're a new construction, and are not especially capitalist; in fact, they're just an example of myopic lawmaking. Issues with the rule of law are irrelevant to the capitalist method, because America no longer follows the libertarian/classical liberalist method of lawmaking (see the constitution) that once did.
I'm not convinced that TAoCP is actually that hard. There is an vast amount of it, that is for sure, but it's written in a conversational tone and fully explains everything it mentions. With a "high school" prior mathematics knowledge and a fair bit of wikipedia/google, I was well able to understand what was said. There isn't a lot of presupposed knowledge (and in fact, I have little programming experience - only common lisp); most things are fully explained. I modelled most of the algos in lisp first, and this helped learning.
Perhaps this is not the case in later volumes though; I read only the first 3/4 of volume 1, and had to give up reading when exam season came around. I'll probably come back to it later.
Do you know what a troll is? The grandparent was not a troll. If you're looking for a generic insult for use on the internet, I not only suggest "n00b"; but also that you go back to playing Unreal Championship. While/. doesn't have the highest standards in the world, I think we're above the most blatant name-calling methods.
My only guess is that you aren't on a video that is allowed for the iPhone (not all videos are; in particular the news is not allowed on the iPhone, which is the only part of this loophole I would use). My advice is to go to the bbc iplayer page as the iPhone, and then pick from the selection you are presented with. I neglected to mention this originally, apologies.
Get Iceweasel/Firefox and the extensions User Agent Switcher and Firebug
Use UAS to switch your browser's http user agent string to "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1A543a Safari/419.3" (you'll have to add this as a new option through the menus)
I suppose it is a bit of both, but the general doesn't make much foreign policy either.
I think it's entirely reasonable for a General in our armed forces, whose job is defending the U.S. Constitution with life and limb, to have read and understood the Constitution.
It's not obvious to me how this contradicts my original point.
My point is that anything that authorities are aware of that is under US jurisdiction, they are well able to deal with themselves; pulling the plug on a domestic server, as the wikileaks debacle showed, is extremely easy. For anything that is out of US jurisdiction to be subject of a publicly government-sanctioned attack would be seen as an act of war, letters of marque or not. It is extremely unlikely that the rest of the world will agree that a letter of marque puts something into US jurisdiction. Especially since the rest of the world has been in general disapproval of letters of marque for centuries, along with the US (after all, have there been any publicly released letters of marque?).
It is an absurd question. He was never going to condone vigilantism. If you want to make a moral point, or discuss changing the position of the US, you should raise it in a court of law or in the legislature.
Frankly, both. The internet is such that any criminals that are under US jurisdiction are easily removed so long as the authorities are aware of them. Anything outside the US is not under US jurisdiction and if the US advocated attacks on these, it could be seen as warlike etc.
It's a pretty unreasonable question to ask someone who does not make criminal policy.
Well, the original poster was using "linux" as a synonym for FOSS Unix. Either way, Free Unix is a much better catch-all for what I was talking about. This is pretty tangential.
I would be surprised if PCLinuxOS was more popular than Ubuntu. It probably just gets more traffic on distrowatch. Either way, I'm sure Debian, RHEL/CentOS, FreeBSD and SuSE make up the vast vast majority of distro installs.
Either way, this is totally irrelevant to the article. Ubuntu is a big desktop orientated distro. It's appropriate for the testing, and I doubt there is much difference for the purposes of this test between Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS.
I'm not sure this is true. Anarchy is generally agreed to mean the absence of government, and this is different from "no laws". Wikipedia agrees
Having a "self-policing community" means having laws.
Not true either. Anarchists (including prominent ones like Chomsky) have often put stated that their form of government does include rules, though I don't know enough about anarchism to state exactly what. One interview I've read is with Peter Jay and this includes some clarification about some anarchist views on the rule of law.
Anarchism is probably the most misrepresented of all political creeds, even more than fascism or communism. While I am certainly no expert (nor anarchist) you're putting forward statements that are clearly untrue, even at a glance.
Nobody living outside their parents' basement is going switch from Linux to BSD for a 15% performance increase. Somebody already using BSD might upgrade if the latest BSD kernels and environment are significantly better than past environments, but 15% is so slight as to be basically undetectable in a real-world environment!
Obviously, it depends on cost:benefit, which is exactly why there is no rule of thumb. Blanket generalisations and "rules of thumb" are a bad way of making a decision for everyone that they don't need to make
That isn't the important point though; the important point raised is that CFS might be less good than promised and that there's the accusation that Linus picked CFS over other projects because Ingo is in the in-crowd. I don't follow lkml, so I wouldn't know whether this is true.
I didn't mean to say American English has no rules. Only that English English has more, and that they are less logical and harder to remember. You're picking a grammar fight when I don't have Fowler's to hand, but from memory;
Singular with an s-ending takes word+'s
Plural without an s-ending takes word+'s
Plural with an s-ending takes word+es'
The United Nations (and other singular entities with plural names) takes word+'s
Between this and contraction forms, it's pretty obvious why apostrophes are dying out.
Secondly, 720p can be done at about 2000kbps with x264, and easily lower than that. A 720p feature length could be done between 2gb and 3gb, and easily than that. Pirates are forging the way in this respect, as a quick google will show. The rest of your conjecture is of even lower quality than your "20gb" number.
Classier? The only advantage of English English is that wordplay, puns and so on are easier because we generally include more variations on words (for example a computer runs programs but a television shows programmes).
But the rules are far stricter if you intend on writing for an audience that expect correctness (I don't write correctly for slashdot). Frankly, there are many more small rules than are really worth observing, such as past participles (learnt and earnt), split infinitives (never allowed, and for no good reason), more complicated apostrophe use (possessives ending in s always send me to a style guide) and the serial comma (which, like I just did, is always omitted).
The real problem is that making a mistake on these points is very easy, and makes you look an idiot.
The marketplace has been duped into believing that this is the best technology can provide. People don't have time to know, understand, or research history and find that technology really can be reliable.
The marketplace hasn't been duped into anything. If reliability was a selling point, it probably would have led to products where reliability was an important feature. Your conclusion seems to rely on the fact that the free market must be well informed on the products in the market - this has never been an important feature of the market. All the market needs to know is which products are more profitable. Improved reliability currently obviously comes at a cost larger than worth paying.
The correct conclusion is that reliability is relatively unimportant for a lot of uses. I know this is a little bit of a shocking view on slashdot, but if a desktop machine crashes, few people care. It's irritating, but in the current market (ie; where MS has a monopoly with a strong lock-in) this is not a big enough incentive to change vendor. Aside from passing a law to force people to artificially take notice of reliability (which is a joke) there isn't a solution.
My entire point is that this was not always the case. Hard as it may be to believe, once upon a time, the "Left" didn't want to tax much at all. This is where socialism has something to do with it. Doing a lot of redistribution is a socialist concept, and the left was previously individualist.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're being sarcastic and trying to psychoanalyse my viewpoint based on my post: give up. You won't discern my position from the GP. You're the one spouting off here; I was only correcting a serious error.
:p Well, I don't mean to make any kind of serious point about Boll, but the logical fallacy of "You can't deny me my right to an opinion" (and other variants) is actually very annoying.
Wow, I really fucked this post up. I'm guessing a "
" came out as a "". This whole thing isn't all meant to be in bold. I'll have to start using the preview.
No one notable ever said that. Voltaire famously did not say it; it has supposedly come about as a summary of his work.
This is typically suppose to involve speech and not _actual_ speech (yelling loudly on a crowded bus is annoying) but metaphorical speech; saying what you want (that Uwe Boll is a terrible filmmaker). It's not supposed to mean "I dislike BloodRayne (2006) but I defend to the death Uwe Boll's ability to spend $25 million to make a film that makes only $1.5 million on its opening weekend!"!
You're misinterpretting the context. The quote is meant to refer to the legal level of "ability". It does not make reference to moral values; I'm sure Voltaire would have opposed those who denied the holocaust and would rather they didn't speak, but he did not favour banning them by law. The point is that prohibitions by law (with certain exclusions) are a mistake. The quote is supposed to mean "When you dislike something, dislike it, but don't ban it". It's not supposed to be a moral carte blanche that allows a director to get away with making a shit film.
First and foremost, Mussolini did not make the trains run on time. The only major work done was before he took power, and even then, eyewitness accounts do not agree that the trains were of any decent quality. This is a complete myth, and it a great example of the horrendous liars that 20th Century fascists were and still are.
Secondary; what you are calling the capitalist system is not the capitalist system. The "capitalist system" doesn't have a rule for "next quarter's numbers". The government regulations that encourage an overreliance on short term measures did not appear in The Wealth of Nations. They're a new construction, and are not especially capitalist; in fact, they're just an example of myopic lawmaking. Issues with the rule of law are irrelevant to the capitalist method, because America no longer follows the libertarian/classical liberalist method of lawmaking (see the constitution) that once did.
It is a very irritating issue, especially if you don't keep every machine you own turned on all the time.
That article is so easy to memorise that I just don't see how people (especially non-native speakers) make mistakes.
I'm not convinced that TAoCP is actually that hard. There is an vast amount of it, that is for sure, but it's written in a conversational tone and fully explains everything it mentions. With a "high school" prior mathematics knowledge and a fair bit of wikipedia/google, I was well able to understand what was said. There isn't a lot of presupposed knowledge (and in fact, I have little programming experience - only common lisp); most things are fully explained. I modelled most of the algos in lisp first, and this helped learning.
Perhaps this is not the case in later volumes though; I read only the first 3/4 of volume 1, and had to give up reading when exam season came around. I'll probably come back to it later.
Do you know what a troll is? The grandparent was not a troll. If you're looking for a generic insult for use on the internet, I not only suggest "n00b"; but also that you go back to playing Unreal Championship. While /. doesn't have the highest standards in the world, I think we're above the most blatant name-calling methods.
Well, the Guardian has just published an article saying "that the BBC thinks the loophole has been closed".. However, it still works just fine.
My only guess is that you aren't on a video that is allowed for the iPhone (not all videos are; in particular the news is not allowed on the iPhone, which is the only part of this loophole I would use). My advice is to go to the bbc iplayer page as the iPhone, and then pick from the selection you are presented with. I neglected to mention this originally, apologies.
Frankly, both. The internet is such that any criminals that are under US jurisdiction are easily removed so long as the authorities are aware of them. Anything outside the US is not under US jurisdiction and if the US advocated attacks on these, it could be seen as warlike etc.
It's a pretty unreasonable question to ask someone who does not make criminal policy.
Well, the original poster was using "linux" as a synonym for FOSS Unix. Either way, Free Unix is a much better catch-all for what I was talking about. This is pretty tangential.
I would be surprised if PCLinuxOS was more popular than Ubuntu. It probably just gets more traffic on distrowatch. Either way, I'm sure Debian, RHEL/CentOS, FreeBSD and SuSE make up the vast vast majority of distro installs.
Either way, this is totally irrelevant to the article. Ubuntu is a big desktop orientated distro. It's appropriate for the testing, and I doubt there is much difference for the purposes of this test between Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS.
Anarchism is probably the most misrepresented of all political creeds, even more than fascism or communism. While I am certainly no expert (nor anarchist) you're putting forward statements that are clearly untrue, even at a glance.
That isn't the important point though; the important point raised is that CFS might be less good than promised and that there's the accusation that Linus picked CFS over other projects because Ingo is in the in-crowd. I don't follow lkml, so I wouldn't know whether this is true.
I didn't mean to say American English has no rules. Only that English English has more, and that they are less logical and harder to remember. You're picking a grammar fight when I don't have Fowler's to hand, but from memory;
Singular with an s-ending takes word+'s
Plural without an s-ending takes word+'s
Plural with an s-ending takes word+es'
The United Nations (and other singular entities with plural names) takes word+'s
Between this and contraction forms, it's pretty obvious why apostrophes are dying out.
Firstly, paragraphs make things clearer.
Secondly, 720p can be done at about 2000kbps with x264, and easily lower than that. A 720p feature length could be done between 2gb and 3gb, and easily than that. Pirates are forging the way in this respect, as a quick google will show. The rest of your conjecture is of even lower quality than your "20gb" number.
Classier? The only advantage of English English is that wordplay, puns and so on are easier because we generally include more variations on words (for example a computer runs programs but a television shows programmes).
But the rules are far stricter if you intend on writing for an audience that expect correctness (I don't write correctly for slashdot). Frankly, there are many more small rules than are really worth observing, such as past participles (learnt and earnt), split infinitives (never allowed, and for no good reason), more complicated apostrophe use (possessives ending in s always send me to a style guide) and the serial comma (which, like I just did, is always omitted).
The real problem is that making a mistake on these points is very easy, and makes you look an idiot.
American English is hard enough, frankly.
The correct conclusion is that reliability is relatively unimportant for a lot of uses. I know this is a little bit of a shocking view on slashdot, but if a desktop machine crashes, few people care. It's irritating, but in the current market (ie; where MS has a monopoly with a strong lock-in) this is not a big enough incentive to change vendor. Aside from passing a law to force people to artificially take notice of reliability (which is a joke) there isn't a solution.
My entire point is that this was not always the case. Hard as it may be to believe, once upon a time, the "Left" didn't want to tax much at all. This is where socialism has something to do with it. Doing a lot of redistribution is a socialist concept, and the left was previously individualist.