This means the lower the IQ score of an individual, the less capably he or she can appreciate and accurately appraise others' intelligence. The lower someone's IQ, the more likely he is to rate himself as more intelligent than those around him.
If dumb people want someone who's dumb, they could pick just about anyone: they don't know who's actually smart, and they think they're smarter anyways, so in their eyes everyone else is dumb.
Wall of Text [picture of parents post] Creature -- Wall (0/8) Protection from line breaks. Always remember to put double newlines in your post; then it'll get broken into paragraphs. Rather too much than too little. Thank you. We now return you to your scheduled flavor text. Artist: rimcrazy and jonaskoelker
Q: How many feminists does it take to fix a broken light bulb? A: That is not funny!
While I don't want to be the "that is not funny" kind of person, I can't help but think that all the geeky girls who read/. felt less appreciated than they deserve.
I know one who has a pink t-shirt that says "01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011". Stick that in your | and smoke it;)
Another one has one that says (front) emerge life and (back) Segmentation fault. That's geekiness with a lot of -fvisibility;)
is this basically a system that underclocks your phone until just before the point where your head explodes?
No, that would be hald-addon-cpufreq, sometimes gratuitously underclocking my box to one third of its natural speed, making firefox unbearably unresponsive.
(and thanks a bundle, Ubuntu, for overriding what I asked cpufreqd to do for me, because you of course know better, and thanks again for the ample documentation of hald-addon-cpufreq)
Thank you for listening; we now return you to your scheduled programming.
'Cause obviously they thought my RAM is there just so they can willy-wave about loading faster than MS Office, instead of fixing their brain-dead code to actually be fast.
Right now I'm using 600 megs out of 2000 (not counting 225 megs of buffers and 872 megs of cache). Sure, the cache speeds things up; could that memory be better spent on caching something else?
In some cases, I think it makes great sense to cache ready-to-run applications.
The power consumption was 29.1 W [lowest] and 31.9 W [highest]
That's a 2.8 watt difference. Over a year, that's 88.4 megajoules, or 24.5 kilowatt hours (*).
Not knowing what your power company charges you, you'll have to figure that out for yourself.
It's always nice to know whether it costs nickels or dollars:)... Assuming of course you make the "meaningful" choice to have your system turned on but idle, instead of it being max-clocked and doing make-work. Shrink the dollar amount by your real savings percentage (50%? 10%? 1%?).
(Of course, trees don't grow on the money, but on healthy planets.)
(*) figures thanks to GNU units: (2.8 W * year) and (2.8 W * year) / (kW * hour); some decimals were chopped.
I'm going to commit an act of slashdot heresy now (aka "I'm going to get modded down for this, but I have karma to burn").
But my parent's saying "for profit business" got me thinking.
I don't object to profit; people want material wealth (among other things), and the free market idea of giving it to people who also give it to others has some merit.
But there's a difference between "profitably meeting your customers' needs" and "profiting by exploiting your customers' needs".
I haven't done the numbers; I don't know how much it would cost Microsoft to continue supporting Windows 2000. But I can't help wonder whether they could implement some pricing structure (i.e. charge for security fixes) that would let them continue supporting Windows 2000. If they could, should they?
Going off on a tangent: if ISPs can profit more by limiting service instead of building more capacity, is that really what we want? Even if I hold stock in all the ISPs, all that my money buys me is crappy Internet.
And let's say you can make a factory produce 2% more widgets by stressing out your employees a little more. Say every workplace does this. We're a little richer, materially, at the expense of our well-being. Is that really what we want?
(Is this the longest explanation of a "market failure" you've ever seen?)
I mean a support contract from a stable provider with multiple levels of escalation, 24x7 call center, etc.
Staffed by pony-tailed bearded guys who charge their employer by the hour.
I'm not really sure what my point with that is; but here's one: why is the physical appearance and pricing structure the important issue?
What if that pony-tailed one-man company is the highest level of tech skills around and he's on call 24x7?
If having more people in the call center means there's always someone available, you're paying wages to people who just monitor the phones but don't have any calls to take.
I think it all comes down to this: what are your needs, and who meets them with the best quality/price trade-off?
I guess we can collect data on how often a one-man show is the answer, relative to the alternative(s), but I don't have that; it doesn't a priori follow that it's a bad idea, though.
What we should be more concerned with is the fact that everything depends on Javascript.
What we should be really concerned with is the fact that people want to implement Quake in LaTeX.
Or rather: they want to use semantic text markup as an application delivery platform. And, server-side, they want to use a (semi-)stateless request-response protocol in a stateful, session-oriented way. And nobody gives a hoot about security (https slashdot login form? Please email me *NOW*).
I'm worried about this, and I have only seen the surface. You web developers who stick their fingers in this pie on a daily basis, please tell me that you sometimes say to yourself "this feels kinda' wrong..."
But that being said, even with numbers in the 30-40% range.
I think it would be good to have healthy competition. 90% firefox--is it really _that_ much better than 90% IE? Won't people become overly dependent on firefox and its quirks? Won't people write web apps which only work on firefox 3.0.5?
Okay, it's a big deal better than IE, being more standards compliant.
But I'd rather see healthy competition; IE, firefox, safari, opera, konqueror, each at 10-20%, vying for people's love and affection, competing with each other on who has the coolest features, the best usability or the fastest rendering engine.
Then again, wearing my free software advocacy hat, I'd like it to be firefox vs. konqueror at 45-50% each;) -- or there to be more free browsers.
Did you never think that? I'll happily admit that I did think that that for some time.
If you ever did, when did you change your thinking? Was it because you heard about "the original version" of $FAIRYTALE, or heard the movie referred to as "the Disney version"?
I think that in the absence of other information it's reasonable to think that $FAIRYTALE is made by Disney when you watch it and see it says "Disney" somewhere near the beginning.
The fact that they're not original to Disney seems like one of those things you don't know that you should go look for. So you're likely to only come by that knowledge by happenstance.
(My mother read me more H. C. Andersen and Astrid Lindgren than Grimm.)
Slashdot Mirror
Many politicians just pretend to be stupid because in many cases voters prefer voting for people who are like them (i.e. stupid).
Per my subject, dumb people don't know dumb from smart. I read it on the interpedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_effect), so it must be true!
This means the lower the IQ score of an individual, the less capably he or she can appreciate and accurately appraise others' intelligence. The lower someone's IQ, the more likely he is to rate himself as more intelligent than those around him.
If dumb people want someone who's dumb, they could pick just about anyone: they don't know who's actually smart, and they think they're smarter anyways, so in their eyes everyone else is dumb.
I think they've already gotten to the politicians first.
But I thought they were all Crab People...
Next, they'll let players play the game through an IRC bot named Anna...
Probably no one cares, but thats the wrong "queues" their. They mean "cues."
Broke that for you.
(for all of you who play Magic: The Gathering)
Wall of Text
[picture of parents post]
Creature -- Wall (0/8)
Protection from line breaks.
Always remember to put double newlines in your post; then it'll get broken into paragraphs. Rather too much than too little. Thank you. We now return you to your scheduled flavor text.
Artist: rimcrazy and jonaskoelker
Yes. Just like breaking a few legs is a necessary part of running a protection racket.
Nononono, Toni. You don break deir leeegs, you break de neecaps. Or as de natives say
"Yo dawg; I heard you like your money, so I put a cap in your cap so you can limp while you walk."
Or does he!
Once it became obvious we needed more girls.
Here's a joke:
Q: How many feminists does it take to fix a broken light bulb?
A: That is not funny!
While I don't want to be the "that is not funny" kind of person, I can't help but think that all the geeky girls who read /. felt less appreciated than they deserve.
I know one who has a pink t-shirt that says "01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011". Stick that in your | and smoke it ;)
Another one has one that says (front) emerge life and (back) Segmentation fault. That's geekiness with a lot of -fvisibility ;)
(and they live up to what they advertise)
You get to see some pictures of them in your emails.
I use mutt, you insensitive clod...
That should be easier to implement than my previous suggestion [...] F&@#IN' [...] MOTHERF&*@&#$
Actually, that's pretty simple. There's a sample implementation in /home/larryw/perl/trunk/parser/tokens.c.
is this basically a system that underclocks your phone until just before the point where your head explodes?
No, that would be hald-addon-cpufreq, sometimes gratuitously underclocking my box to one third of its natural speed, making firefox unbearably unresponsive.
(and thanks a bundle, Ubuntu, for overriding what I asked cpufreqd to do for me, because you of course know better, and thanks again for the ample documentation of hald-addon-cpufreq)
Thank you for listening; we now return you to your scheduled programming.
'Cause obviously they thought my RAM is there just so they can willy-wave about loading faster than MS Office, instead of fixing their brain-dead code to actually be fast.
Right now I'm using 600 megs out of 2000 (not counting 225 megs of buffers and 872 megs of cache). Sure, the cache speeds things up; could that memory be better spent on caching something else?
In some cases, I think it makes great sense to cache ready-to-run applications.
The power consumption was 29.1 W [lowest] and 31.9 W [highest]
That's a 2.8 watt difference. Over a year, that's 88.4 megajoules, or 24.5 kilowatt hours (*).
Not knowing what your power company charges you, you'll have to figure that out for yourself.
It's always nice to know whether it costs nickels or dollars :) ... Assuming of course you make the "meaningful" choice to have your system turned on but idle, instead of it being max-clocked and doing make-work. Shrink the dollar amount by your real savings percentage (50%? 10%? 1%?).
(Of course, trees don't grow on the money, but on healthy planets.)
(*) figures thanks to GNU units: (2.8 W * year) and (2.8 W * year) / (kW * hour); some decimals were chopped.
I'm going to commit an act of slashdot heresy now (aka "I'm going to get modded down for this, but I have karma to burn").
But my parent's saying "for profit business" got me thinking.
I don't object to profit; people want material wealth (among other things), and the free market idea of giving it to people who also give it to others has some merit.
But there's a difference between "profitably meeting your customers' needs" and "profiting by exploiting your customers' needs".
I haven't done the numbers; I don't know how much it would cost Microsoft to continue supporting Windows 2000. But I can't help wonder whether they could implement some pricing structure (i.e. charge for security fixes) that would let them continue supporting Windows 2000. If they could, should they?
Going off on a tangent: if ISPs can profit more by limiting service instead of building more capacity, is that really what we want? Even if I hold stock in all the ISPs, all that my money buys me is crappy Internet.
And let's say you can make a factory produce 2% more widgets by stressing out your employees a little more. Say every workplace does this. We're a little richer, materially, at the expense of our well-being. Is that really what we want?
(Is this the longest explanation of a "market failure" you've ever seen?)
I mean a support contract from a stable provider with multiple levels of escalation, 24x7 call center, etc.
Staffed by pony-tailed bearded guys who charge their employer by the hour.
I'm not really sure what my point with that is; but here's one: why is the physical appearance and pricing structure the important issue?
What if that pony-tailed one-man company is the highest level of tech skills around and he's on call 24x7?
If having more people in the call center means there's always someone available, you're paying wages to people who just monitor the phones but don't have any calls to take.
I think it all comes down to this: what are your needs, and who meets them with the best quality/price trade-off?
I guess we can collect data on how often a one-man show is the answer, relative to the alternative(s), but I don't have that; it doesn't a priori follow that it's a bad idea, though.
So that's how memme is formed!?
Why would that label seem appropriate?
But it's completely different! The American Czars are honorable representatives of the people who are held accountable for their actions!
Right?
Czar is the Slavic rendering of Caesar.
So it's really pronounced C-zar? ;)
- Wants to be on every desktop
SCO?
- Is on most of them
Oh. Well, theoretically, if you count their sponsors...
I think I know where Numbers extrapolate you!! In soviet
Moskau, Moskau,
Wodka trinkt man pur und kalt
Das macht hundert Jahre alt
ha ha ha ha ha, hey
What we should be more concerned with is the fact that everything depends on Javascript.
What we should be really concerned with is the fact that people want to implement Quake in LaTeX.
Or rather: they want to use semantic text markup as an application delivery platform. And, server-side, they want to use a (semi-)stateless request-response protocol in a stateful, session-oriented way. And nobody gives a hoot about security (https slashdot login form? Please email me *NOW*).
I'm worried about this, and I have only seen the surface. You web developers who stick their fingers in this pie on a daily basis, please tell me that you sometimes say to yourself "this feels kinda' wrong..."
But that being said, even with numbers in the 30-40% range.
I think it would be good to have healthy competition. 90% firefox--is it really _that_ much better than 90% IE? Won't people become overly dependent on firefox and its quirks? Won't people write web apps which only work on firefox 3.0.5?
Okay, it's a big deal better than IE, being more standards compliant.
But I'd rather see healthy competition; IE, firefox, safari, opera, konqueror, each at 10-20%, vying for people's love and affection, competing with each other on who has the coolest features, the best usability or the fastest rendering engine.
Then again, wearing my free software advocacy hat, I'd like it to be firefox vs. konqueror at 45-50% each ;) -- or there to be more free browsers.
(You make a good point, but I can't resist...)
NetBSD^W Microsoft is dying! mcrbids confirms it.
Venereal - sexually indulgent
And all married men suddenly cried out "The whole 'Women are from Venus' thing is a scam!"
(did anyone ever think Disney came up with them?)
Did you never think that? I'll happily admit that I did think that that for some time.
If you ever did, when did you change your thinking? Was it because you heard about "the original version" of $FAIRYTALE, or heard the movie referred to as "the Disney version"?
I think that in the absence of other information it's reasonable to think that $FAIRYTALE is made by Disney when you watch it and see it says "Disney" somewhere near the beginning.
The fact that they're not original to Disney seems like one of those things you don't know that you should go look for. So you're likely to only come by that knowledge by happenstance.
(My mother read me more H. C. Andersen and Astrid Lindgren than Grimm.)