If you want to try/that/ shit, then the following are also emulators: 1. All current x86 processors (because they use micro-ops) 2. All DirectX and OpenGL implementations (because they are wrappers for the native graphics card operations) 3. All operating systems (because provide APIs which are wrappers around the hardware) 4. All major programming languages in use today other than C, C++, and FORTRAN.
Do you get it now? If you redefine a words, they stop meaning what you want them to mean. No, Wine Is Not an Emulator, at least not in any sense that is relevant to a discussion about its performance. WINE is an implementation of the Win32 API. Microsoft provides one implementation of the Win32 API; WINE provides another one. Neither one is an "emulator".
Actually, Chernobyl was online until 2000 or so. Yeah, I was surprised, too... but they really needed the power, so they kept them going. They did modify the design somewhat, but they were still graphite-based.
Actually, in CS, conference publications generally carry more weight than journal publications. Each subfield of CS has 2-4 top conferences, and that's where you want to publish work in that field. I know this is different from most fields, but the OP was talking about CS.
Now, as far as this conference in particular, well, I've never heard of it and have no idea how reputable it is or how widely read its proceedings are.
> I'm on the fence about this myself, but not because of any religious argument, and I would never force my view on others (recognizing that it is completely subjective).
Okay, see, you were doing pretty well... but this doesn't make sense.
The debate about abortion is this: Side A: "It's a human, so having an abortion is killing a human, so we shouldn't allow it." Side B: "It's not a human, maybe it could be if we let it grow, but right now it's not, so it's ok for the host to kill it if she feels like it."
If you agree with Side B, then by saying "I would never force my view on others", you're saying "I won't force people who don't want to have an abortion to have one", which is... good. If you agree with Side A... then by saying "I would never force my view on others", you're basically saying, "I won't force people not to murder other people", which is... not so good. If you're on the fence, and you don't know, and so you don't want to take sides, fine... but once you've made up your mind, if you happen to agree with Side A, your pseudo-libertarian non-interference position is going to start breaking down. I'm not saying the right approach would be to bomb abortion clinics, because that would just be murdering more people, but using the political process to try to outlaw a currently legal form of murder would probably be an appropriate thing to consider doing. I think even bona-fide Libertarians agree that murder is wrong, and that we as a society shouldn't allow it.
And no, I'm not going to say if I'm on side A or side B, because it's irrelevant:) Mwa ha ha.
Oddly enough, plundering the lottery isn't very different from robbing charities. In most cases, lottery proceeds are directly used to fund public schools. Methodically ripping off public schools for a living is, in my opinion, ethically problematic. Of course, ripping off poor, uneducated people to fund public schools is also, in my opinion, ethically problematic.
Well, you know, there IS H.264 support out there for Linux. MPlayer supports basically every codec ever made. You could have installed it for her... Ubuntu even has a "click to install this oh btw it might be illegal but who gives an arse" thing for codecs with patent issues.
As far as I can tell, SOX is probably the second-most over-hyped piece of legal misunderstanding promulgated as fact on Slashdot, position #1 being the recurring myth that ISPs are subject to common carrier regulations.
SOX applies to public companies only. From Wikipedia, it does not appear to place any specific requirements on corporate IT, except that the corporate IT will be audited for compliance with the "normal" parts of the law -- so you have to keep records on various things. This hasn't stopped people from making shit up -- if the law specifies that certain data must be "retained" for X months, Slashdotters and charlatans selling "SOX compliance" services are going to say that means the law says you have to use RAID 1000000 and update your offsite backups every 2 days. Just, cuz, you know, that's standard practice.
The law -- and I haven't read it, but I can guarantee you OP hasn't either -- doesn't say anything like that. Just like it doesn't say you have to chisel your non-digital documents in titanium sheets in case the building catches fire. It's not specifying particular standards -- it's just saying you can't be Enron. If the building catches fire or the hard drive crashes, well, you know, shit happens. Whether not installing sprinklers or not having backups was negligent or in bad faith is for a court to decide. So far, it hasn't come up.
OP -- and I don't know him, and he's probably a nice guy -- may now tell me about his personal experience with how Fortune 500 companies DO chisel Xeroxes into titanium and DO use RAID 1000000 and daily updated offsite backups AND ANYTHING ELSE IS NEGLIGENT AND WOULD GET ME THROWN INTO JAIL IN THE "REAL WORLD". And I'm probably going to ignore him because this post took all the time I want to spend talking about this. But: unless he backs his claims up with a statute, a court case, or at least a letter ruling from some relevant executive branch agency... I'd be suspicious, man. Think of all the corporate incompetence with information management (laptops with credit cards gone missing... oops) you hear about on Slashdot. Now think if Slashdot talks about anyone going to jail for that, or even getting in any real trouble.
Whether it is a mess or not is something Germany can decide for themselves and resolve themselves. They have every right to support and empower Hitler and the rest of the world has no right to push them toward values they believe you're right.
You haven't cited anything yet, actually. And I doubt the quality of your evidence is very good. Conducting actual experiments would be inhumane, and a correlational study would be suspect as people with greater intellectual capacity could easily be expected to have a tendency to know multiple languages.
"current studies suggest that for each language you learn, you add 5+ years to your brain's functional lifespan and you add (an as-yet undetermined) degree of capacity to learn (it bulks the brain up, giving more room for more connections and more complex connections."
I call bullshit. If this were true, the US, as a primarily monolinguistic society, would be a technological backwater.
No, he doesn't want to abrogate their freedom of speech. They are free -- anonymously or not -- to speak arguments against the ones he makes. All he wants is the freedom to speak his mind without his words being traced to him. That way, people can't refuse to interact with him socially or economically based on the views he expresses only as his anonymized persona. As a country, we (the US) recognize that there is a right to such a form of speech.
Whether people should be able to refuse to interact with someone based on his views, if they discover them somehow, is a different question: certainly you should not have to be the friend of someone you don't like, and certainly the owner of a business shouldn't have to hire anyone he dislikes for any reason, but note that the "owners" of large businesses are typically hordes of plutomanic investors who would not be making hiring decisions directly. Whether a manager should be able to make a hiring decision based on political views is less clear-cut: in my opinion, such a manager would be abrogating his duty to serve the company's interests.
> That's the way the world works, dog eat dog where it's survival of the fittest. And this is true socially as well, where pissing off someone with power will get you killed.
Yeah, man. I knew a guy who refused to give his boss the password to the router, and they found his dead body riddled with bullet holes in the river 2 weeks later. Insightful comment you made there.
Note: I'm seriously asking. No need to personally attack me or anything; I'm not personally attacking you. I'm assuming you have some piece of evidence other than the ice core data on which you're basing your claim of temporal ordering, and I'm just asking you what that is.
I'll just apply to one of you, since you're all basically saying the same thing, and since you showed up in my inbox first, it's you: 1. If you're turning on your high beams so often you know how to do it off the top of your head, you either live in the sticks or you're doing it wrong. From your comment, you live, or grew up in, the sticks. Fine. I didn't. 2. By being scared I don't mean panicked, or having the autonomic response to fear. I mean recognizing that I am in a dangerous situation and that I should try to get out of it or at least proceed with extra caution. This is a reasonable response to driving when you can only see X feet ahead of you, where X is small. 3. You're more likely to see the idiot on the wrong side of the road in enough time to take evasive action if you're not relying solely on your own headlights to illuminate him. 4. Yes, lots of people live in very small towns where they don't bother putting up street lights. In the US, lots more live in cities, where they do.
Driving is scary. It's a leading cause of death in the US. Driving at night, especially where there are no streetlights, is scarier because you have poorer visibility. Recognition of these facts says nothing about my qualifications for driving. If you/don't/ recognize the danger caused by the fact that you can't see things at night yet are hurdling 30+ miles an hour down the road, potentially toward one of those things (downed tree, downed power line, etc.), I think your judgment may be questionable. And no, high beams won't save you from a tree in the middle of the interstate if you're going 65mph. Daylight will.
I like this quote, but Google isn't turning up the original source. I'd love to read it in the original Latin. I can't seem to find it in/Meditations/. Do you know where it's from?
> No offense, but someone who doesn't even know how to turn their high-beams on probably isn't qualified to be posting about headlight performance.
Okay, well, that's almost offensive on its face, but, as I wasn't posting about headlight performance but rather the distribution of streetlights, none taken.
> If you find it scary to drive at night without high-beams then please stop driving at night, you aren't qualified....and that really is kind of offensive. I'm perfectly qualified to drive at night, thank you very much. Although driving at night on roads where there are no streetlights is kind of dangerous, and really no one should be doing it if it can be helped. Btw the road I'm talking about had "exactly zero lights".
> That said, turning your high beams on is an incredibly simple matter...
and I'm not going to bother reading this because, while I'm sure I'll need this again in my life, it will probably be in about 3 years or so and I can guarantee you I won't remember it. And, if it happens that I do expect to need it in the near future, I will pull over and check the car manual.
Btw, I've never driven in Las Vegas, but I'd driven in a number of cities and towns in the US at night. Even smallish towns tend to be well-lit at night. The roads to watch out for, in my experience, are: 1. REALLY small towns, where they sometimes don't actually light the roads. 2. Interstates or state highways. 3. Back roads, like the one I was talking about. These are the worst because they curve so much and can have unexpected intersections with stop signs.
I personally would be most likely to have occasion to travel on (2) at night. And I would actually try to avoid it if I did have such occasion. If you're routinely driving on interstates at night, you have a death wish. Even if you're not sleepy, others on the road might be. And even if they're not sleepy, they might be smugglers. Speeding to avoid the border patrol / police. Without headlights. On the wrong side of the road. Yes, this has happened.
Ok, but I've driven late at night on a back road with no streetlights, and I'm glad I had headlights. It was pretty scary, actually, considering that, yes, in most normal urban driving conditions, you do have a lot of ambient light to help you. I considered turning high beams on but didn't want to stop in the middle of the road (no shoulder on this road, of course) to figure out how to turn the damn things on.
You: "The bank cut interest rates, so I will start speculating on stocks."
This may not be the right approach. Non-CD savings accounts at banks are not for investment. They are for liquidity. If you want to move your liquid assets into an investment vehicle with similar risk characteristics, a good replacement would be something geared toward capital preservation if they're not giving you enough money. Now, you can't get something for nothing, so, relative to a bank account, you will either be giving up liquidity or taking on risk.
If you'd rather take on risk, you can invest in a money market fund. These are mutual funds that try really, really hard not to lose your money, but, unlike a bank, they can, and the Federal Reserve will not save you if they do.
If you'd rather give up liquidity, and you are a US resident or citizen, this is the place to go: [http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm]. I-bonds are absolutely awesome for long-term saving. You are guaranteed to beat inflation, since the rate of return is "inflation + x%". You are also guaranteed not to lose money, since even if extreme deflation occurs, you will never earn less than 0%. You are guaranteed against default because the bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the US federal government (and if you don't trust that, you shouldn't trust banks, since that's all banks are backed by). This is a very sweet deal, so they only give it to US residents and citizens, and they only let you invest up to $5000 per year. You might want to wait until new rates are announced in May since starting November 1st they only give you exactly the rate of inflation (or 0% during deflation). You may also want to look into TIPS securities and EE/E bonds.
Bottom line, you have options other than stock speculation, and you should always consider risk when making investments. Going from bank account to stock market radically increases your risk exposure.
Strict legislation in Switzerland has made it extremely difficult to obtain a license to bear arms, and the trend is moving towards even stricter laws. For information purposes only, 400 people had a license to bear arms in the canton of Geneva in 1998. Only eight "survivors" still have authorization today. Understandable when you realize how little violent crime there is in Switzerland.
If there are many such examples, please give one, because I can't think of a single modern society where a substantial fraction of the civilian population routinely goes around packing heat.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to try /that/ shit, then the following are also emulators:
1. All current x86 processors (because they use micro-ops)
2. All DirectX and OpenGL implementations (because they are wrappers for the native graphics card operations)
3. All operating systems (because provide APIs which are wrappers around the hardware)
4. All major programming languages in use today other than C, C++, and FORTRAN.
Do you get it now? If you redefine a words, they stop meaning what you want them to mean. No, Wine Is Not an Emulator, at least not in any sense that is relevant to a discussion about its performance. WINE is an implementation of the Win32 API. Microsoft provides one implementation of the Win32 API; WINE provides another one. Neither one is an "emulator".
Actually, Chernobyl was online until 2000 or so. Yeah, I was surprised, too ... but they really needed the power, so they kept them going. They did modify the design somewhat, but they were still graphite-based.
She doesn't, but River Tam, a character she played in Firefly and Serenity, did.
Actually, in CS, conference publications generally carry more weight than journal publications. Each subfield of CS has 2-4 top conferences, and that's where you want to publish work in that field. I know this is different from most fields, but the OP was talking about CS.
Now, as far as this conference in particular, well, I've never heard of it and have no idea how reputable it is or how widely read its proceedings are.
I believe this took place in Germany, although it took a lot of digging to find that out.
---linuxrocks123
> I'm on the fence about this myself, but not because of any religious argument, and I would never force my view on others (recognizing that it is completely subjective).
Okay, see, you were doing pretty well ... but this doesn't make sense.
The debate about abortion is this:
Side A: "It's a human, so having an abortion is killing a human, so we shouldn't allow it."
Side B: "It's not a human, maybe it could be if we let it grow, but right now it's not, so it's ok for the host to kill it if she feels like it."
If you agree with Side B, then by saying "I would never force my view on others", you're saying "I won't force people who don't want to have an abortion to have one", which is ... good. If you agree with Side A ... then by saying "I would never force my view on others", you're basically saying, "I won't force people not to murder other people", which is ... not so good. If you're on the fence, and you don't know, and so you don't want to take sides, fine ... but once you've made up your mind, if you happen to agree with Side A, your pseudo-libertarian non-interference position is going to start breaking down. I'm not saying the right approach would be to bomb abortion clinics, because that would just be murdering more people, but using the political process to try to outlaw a currently legal form of murder would probably be an appropriate thing to consider doing. I think even bona-fide Libertarians agree that murder is wrong, and that we as a society shouldn't allow it.
And no, I'm not going to say if I'm on side A or side B, because it's irrelevant :) Mwa ha ha.
---linuxrocks123
Oddly enough, plundering the lottery isn't very different from robbing charities. In most cases, lottery proceeds are directly used to fund public schools. Methodically ripping off public schools for a living is, in my opinion, ethically problematic. Of course, ripping off poor, uneducated people to fund public schools is also, in my opinion, ethically problematic.
Well, you know, there IS H.264 support out there for Linux. MPlayer supports basically every codec ever made. You could have installed it for her ... Ubuntu even has a "click to install this oh btw it might be illegal but who gives an arse" thing for codecs with patent issues.
As far as I can tell, SOX is probably the second-most over-hyped piece of legal misunderstanding promulgated as fact on Slashdot, position #1 being the recurring myth that ISPs are subject to common carrier regulations.
SOX applies to public companies only. From Wikipedia, it does not appear to place any specific requirements on corporate IT, except that the corporate IT will be audited for compliance with the "normal" parts of the law -- so you have to keep records on various things. This hasn't stopped people from making shit up -- if the law specifies that certain data must be "retained" for X months, Slashdotters and charlatans selling "SOX compliance" services are going to say that means the law says you have to use RAID 1000000 and update your offsite backups every 2 days. Just, cuz, you know, that's standard practice.
The law -- and I haven't read it, but I can guarantee you OP hasn't either -- doesn't say anything like that. Just like it doesn't say you have to chisel your non-digital documents in titanium sheets in case the building catches fire. It's not specifying particular standards -- it's just saying you can't be Enron. If the building catches fire or the hard drive crashes, well, you know, shit happens. Whether not installing sprinklers or not having backups was negligent or in bad faith is for a court to decide. So far, it hasn't come up.
OP -- and I don't know him, and he's probably a nice guy -- may now tell me about his personal experience with how Fortune 500 companies DO chisel Xeroxes into titanium and DO use RAID 1000000 and daily updated offsite backups AND ANYTHING ELSE IS NEGLIGENT AND WOULD GET ME THROWN INTO JAIL IN THE "REAL WORLD". And I'm probably going to ignore him because this post took all the time I want to spend talking about this. But: unless he backs his claims up with a statute, a court case, or at least a letter ruling from some relevant executive branch agency ... I'd be suspicious, man. Think of all the corporate incompetence with information management (laptops with credit cards gone missing ... oops) you hear about on Slashdot. Now think if Slashdot talks about anyone going to jail for that, or even getting in any real trouble.
---linuxrocks123
Whether it is a mess or not is something Germany can decide for themselves and resolve themselves. They have every right to support and empower Hitler and the rest of the world has no right to push them toward values they believe you're right.
More bluntly: you're a moron.
---linuxrocks123
You haven't cited anything yet, actually. And I doubt the quality of your evidence is very good. Conducting actual experiments would be inhumane, and a correlational study would be suspect as people with greater intellectual capacity could easily be expected to have a tendency to know multiple languages.
---linuxrocks123
"current studies suggest that for each language you learn, you add 5+ years to your brain's functional lifespan and you add (an as-yet undetermined) degree of capacity to learn (it bulks the brain up, giving more room for more connections and more complex connections."
I call bullshit. If this were true, the US, as a primarily monolinguistic society, would be a technological backwater.
---linuxrocks123
No, he doesn't want to abrogate their freedom of speech. They are free -- anonymously or not -- to speak arguments against the ones he makes. All he wants is the freedom to speak his mind without his words being traced to him. That way, people can't refuse to interact with him socially or economically based on the views he expresses only as his anonymized persona. As a country, we (the US) recognize that there is a right to such a form of speech.
Whether people should be able to refuse to interact with someone based on his views, if they discover them somehow, is a different question: certainly you should not have to be the friend of someone you don't like, and certainly the owner of a business shouldn't have to hire anyone he dislikes for any reason, but note that the "owners" of large businesses are typically hordes of plutomanic investors who would not be making hiring decisions directly. Whether a manager should be able to make a hiring decision based on political views is less clear-cut: in my opinion, such a manager would be abrogating his duty to serve the company's interests.
---linuxrocks123
> That's the way the world works, dog eat dog where it's survival of the fittest. And this is true socially as well, where pissing off someone with power will get you killed.
Yeah, man. I knew a guy who refused to give his boss the password to the router, and they found his dead body riddled with bullet holes in the river 2 weeks later. Insightful comment you made there.
On what basis do you claim temporal ordering?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg shows that the temperature fluctuations PRECEDED the CO_2 fluctuations.
Note: I'm seriously asking. No need to personally attack me or anything; I'm not personally attacking you. I'm assuming you have some piece of evidence other than the ice core data on which you're basing your claim of temporal ordering, and I'm just asking you what that is.
Have a nice day,
---linuxrocks123
I'll just apply to one of you, since you're all basically saying the same thing, and since you showed up in my inbox first, it's you:
1. If you're turning on your high beams so often you know how to do it off the top of your head, you either live in the sticks or you're doing it wrong. From your comment, you live, or grew up in, the sticks. Fine. I didn't.
2. By being scared I don't mean panicked, or having the autonomic response to fear. I mean recognizing that I am in a dangerous situation and that I should try to get out of it or at least proceed with extra caution. This is a reasonable response to driving when you can only see X feet ahead of you, where X is small.
3. You're more likely to see the idiot on the wrong side of the road in enough time to take evasive action if you're not relying solely on your own headlights to illuminate him.
4. Yes, lots of people live in very small towns where they don't bother putting up street lights. In the US, lots more live in cities, where they do.
Driving is scary. It's a leading cause of death in the US. Driving at night, especially where there are no streetlights, is scarier because you have poorer visibility. Recognition of these facts says nothing about my qualifications for driving. If you /don't/ recognize the danger caused by the fact that you can't see things at night yet are hurdling 30+ miles an hour down the road, potentially toward one of those things (downed tree, downed power line, etc.), I think your judgment may be questionable. And no, high beams won't save you from a tree in the middle of the interstate if you're going 65mph. Daylight will.
---linuxrocks123
I like this quote, but Google isn't turning up the original source. I'd love to read it in the original Latin. I can't seem to find it in /Meditations/. Do you know where it's from?
---linuxrocks123
> No offense, but someone who doesn't even know how to turn their high-beams on probably isn't qualified to be posting about headlight performance.
Okay, well, that's almost offensive on its face, but, as I wasn't posting about headlight performance but rather the distribution of streetlights, none taken.
> If you find it scary to drive at night without high-beams then please stop driving at night, you aren't qualified. ...and that really is kind of offensive. I'm perfectly qualified to drive at night, thank you very much. Although driving at night on roads where there are no streetlights is kind of dangerous, and really no one should be doing it if it can be helped. Btw the road I'm talking about had "exactly zero lights".
> That said, turning your high beams on is an incredibly simple matter...
and I'm not going to bother reading this because, while I'm sure I'll need this again in my life, it will probably be in about 3 years or so and I can guarantee you I won't remember it. And, if it happens that I do expect to need it in the near future, I will pull over and check the car manual.
Btw, I've never driven in Las Vegas, but I'd driven in a number of cities and towns in the US at night. Even smallish towns tend to be well-lit at night. The roads to watch out for, in my experience, are:
1. REALLY small towns, where they sometimes don't actually light the roads.
2. Interstates or state highways.
3. Back roads, like the one I was talking about. These are the worst because they curve so much and can have unexpected intersections with stop signs.
I personally would be most likely to have occasion to travel on (2) at night. And I would actually try to avoid it if I did have such occasion. If you're routinely driving on interstates at night, you have a death wish. Even if you're not sleepy, others on the road might be. And even if they're not sleepy, they might be smugglers. Speeding to avoid the border patrol / police. Without headlights. On the wrong side of the road. Yes, this has happened.
---linuxrocks123
Ok, but I've driven late at night on a back road with no streetlights, and I'm glad I had headlights. It was pretty scary, actually, considering that, yes, in most normal urban driving conditions, you do have a lot of ambient light to help you. I considered turning high beams on but didn't want to stop in the middle of the road (no shoulder on this road, of course) to figure out how to turn the damn things on.
---linuxrocks123
Locke and Voltaire had these arguments with people back in the 1700s. Your side lost. Have a nice day.
---linuxrocks123
What college?
---linuxrocks123
You: "The bank cut interest rates, so I will start speculating on stocks."
This may not be the right approach. Non-CD savings accounts at banks are not for investment. They are for liquidity. If you want to move your liquid assets into an investment vehicle with similar risk characteristics, a good replacement would be something geared toward capital preservation if they're not giving you enough money. Now, you can't get something for nothing, so, relative to a bank account, you will either be giving up liquidity or taking on risk.
If you'd rather take on risk, you can invest in a money market fund. These are mutual funds that try really, really hard not to lose your money, but, unlike a bank, they can, and the Federal Reserve will not save you if they do.
If you'd rather give up liquidity, and you are a US resident or citizen, this is the place to go: [http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm]. I-bonds are absolutely awesome for long-term saving. You are guaranteed to beat inflation, since the rate of return is "inflation + x%". You are also guaranteed not to lose money, since even if extreme deflation occurs, you will never earn less than 0%. You are guaranteed against default because the bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the US federal government (and if you don't trust that, you shouldn't trust banks, since that's all banks are backed by). This is a very sweet deal, so they only give it to US residents and citizens, and they only let you invest up to $5000 per year. You might want to wait until new rates are announced in May since starting November 1st they only give you exactly the rate of inflation (or 0% during deflation). You may also want to look into TIPS securities and EE/E bonds.
Bottom line, you have options other than stock speculation, and you should always consider risk when making investments. Going from bank account to stock market radically increases your risk exposure.
---linuxrocks123
Nope: http://isyours.com/e/immigration/relocation/weapons/bearing.html
Strict legislation in Switzerland has made it extremely difficult to obtain a license to bear arms, and the trend is moving towards even stricter laws. For information purposes only, 400 people had a license to bear arms in the canton of Geneva in 1998. Only eight "survivors" still have authorization today. Understandable when you realize how little violent crime there is in Switzerland.
---linuxrocks123
If there are many such examples, please give one, because I can't think of a single modern society where a substantial fraction of the civilian population routinely goes around packing heat.
I think you just insulted the entire continent of Europe...