Running on top and bootstrap are not the same thing. You can use DOS to bootstrap Linux also using the loadlin program, but that doesn't mean the Linux runs on top of DOS.
That doesn't mean that Windows 95 relied on DOS for much though, unlike Windows 3.1 which relied on DOS for file I/O operations. Windows 95 used DOS for 16-bit drivers that it didn't already have 32-bit versions of and other things.
Well, I'm posting this from my system running GNU/emacs. I refuse to go along with the general populace's notion of the GUI as the preferred UI. Things are much faster with keyboard combinations anyway.
You've hit on one of my pet peeves man. Hell, DIAMONDS are oraganic, and so is pencil lead. They way these people use the term incorrectly drives me nuts.
Seriously.
I have a steering wheel attached to my belt now because of it.
Right on! And the people who use "pencil lead" instead of "graphite." I mean, lead was never used in pencils. It's just that those idiots who discovered graphite thought it really was lead. The audacity...
The problem is that even though there is evidence that some traditional therapies work, MDs have converted to 80% pharmaceuticals and 20% lifestyle changes, and they are trained in little else.
As an MD, I'll chime in. Obesity is an epidemic in this country and is best addressed by lifestyle changes. The problem with lifestyle change is that most patients are unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to change their health. It's that simple. On the other hand, there are certain genetic predispositions that require drugs for supplements if lifestyle change is ineffective: high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.
So if you don't want stimulants for your kid with ADHD (now they have straterra, but it isn't very effective), the MD offers nothing else. If you have trouble sleeping, their toolkit consists of hardcore hypnotics. Mild depression or anxiety? All they have are brain-altering and or addictive drugs. Indigestion? You'll probably be on calcium or cimetidine the rest of your life.
I don't deal with most of these, but trouble sleeping, mild depression, anxiety, indegestion, etc. all seem to have a lifestyle component. Now if the patient comes back and says that he/she can't change some lifestyle aspect (eg job stress, home stress, avoiding certain foods, etc), there's not much else to do but try the medications.
I suffered from daily stomach problems for over a decade and saw several MDs and never got anything resolved. The best they could do was cimetidine which barely provided any relief (they found no ulcer, but I had daily abdominal pain). I finally got so frustrated I saw a "quack" licensed naturopath and after cleaning out my diet and replacing my gut bacteria I'm finally pain free. I don't buy into the homeopathy or "cracking your back can cure your asthma" bullshit but thankfully there is exists some other profession that isn't 100% pharmaceuticals.
Looks like you did a lifestyle change. I'm surprised your physicians didn't ask you to take a food diary and go from there.
It's not because the hospitals are sterilizing. It's because people keep using antibiotics for things that are unnecessary that selects for antibiotic resistant bacteria such as MRSA. If and when vancomycin resistant Staph. becomes prevalent (I'm aware of 3 documented cases so far), we're in deep shit.
Has anyone considered the effects on the AI of actually realising it's intelligent? Unlike an organism (Human baby, say) it will not realise this over a protracted period, and may not be able to cope with the concept at all, particularly if it realises that there are other intelligences (us?) which are fundamentally different to itself.
What possible evidence do you have for any of this? How do you know an AI is not an emergent phenomenon when it's first created?
It's quite possible that it will go mad as soon as it knows it's intelligent and considers all the implications and ramifications of this.
Again, where do you get this from? Do children go mad knowing it's intelligent, etc?
Wait a minute. What's the difference between "true intelligence" and "simulation of intelligence that can't be discerned from 'true intelligence'"? This is an issue philosophers have been dealing with for a while. The conclusion is that there is no difference.
The problem isn't that businesses litigate over patent disputes. The problem isn't even so-called "patent trolls". It's the legal framework that creates it; The deeper judicial and legal principles. Patents were meant to cover an applied technological advancement; Not a theoretical one, or to intangibles like a process. But the patent system has been expanded to cover these, and it was done in a haphazard fashion by people who didn't fully understand the implications of doing so.
The net result is that the patent system is being used to protect intangibles -- markets, processes, and "intellectual property". This was never the intend of the patent system. Even worse, the time limit of 7 to 14 years was needed due to slow business processes of the pre-computer era when it would take years to develop something and bring it to market. Now, development to market time can be weeks or months. While this was originally designed so that the inventor (an individual) could profit from his invention while safely making available details of how it worked to the public (thus advancing the state of the art), it nowadays functions as an impetiment to invention because of the long life of the patent and the nearly endless variations that are possible to keep basic inventions protected in perpetuity.
What's needed is a radical rethink of business process and economics, and the removal of the extreme reliance upon the legal system to protect it.
I agree with you in general. However, in this day and age of computers, there are quite a few industries where development to market is still in the order of years. Boeing's filed many patents on their upcoming 787. It's been in development for years. New classes of drugs take years to get approval, even drugs within the same family (although not as long as the first instance). As for cars, the average time to market for a new car is about 5 years.
Your figures are higher than they should be because the GPU and memory on ATI cards (and NVidia cards for that matter) can be downclocked with open source programs.
Someone mod parent up. Lab grown meat is the way to go for those ethically opposed to animal suffering. But the other benefits include freeing up more usable land, much more efficient and precise meat production, etc.
Superconducting wires? Bah, impossible! Time moves slower the faster you go? Bah, that's not even remotely correct! The earth is round? Bah, it's flat and carried on the backs of turtles all the way down!
American Motor Corporation. They made such venerable cars as the Gremlin and the Pacer and various Jeep models. Then they were bought by Chrysler. Now they're making movies for some reason.
Great, and how well does Open Office work on 256 MB of memory? Sure you can use it, but it's rather excruciating. I'd rather get a computer with more than 256 MB of memory to do all that stuff.
That's another box to buy and connect to the TV. I thought people chose the PLAYSTATION 3 to get away from having to buy an extra box for everything.
Yes, that's why there's PS2 compatibility. Oh wait, there isn't so now I have to connect my PS2 to play PS2 games. Besides, how many people use their PS3 as the main computer anyway? I'd rather get a Dell computer that comes with more than 256 MB of RAM for my $400 thank you very much.
If you have an SDTV, you have to buy yet another box to convert the VGA signals from the PC to the composite or S-Video signals that the console understands.
And if you have your PS3 connected to an SDTV, you're wasting the entire purpose of the PS3: playing Blu-Ray and playing games in high definition.
Of course there are a million machines you can install Linux on, but the PS3 was particularly nice because of its Cell architecture. That allowed for some super-computer like performance for a low, low price. Lots of research institutions used PS3 clusters for low cost supercomputing. Now that future is jeopardized.
Lots? More like "barely any." The only entity that has done anything significant is IBM with their Roadrunner supercomputer. A network of several PS3s is not a supercomputer.
With regard to RAM, the graphics memory can be used as a higher priority swap device so that sort of gives ~512 MB of usable memory but granted it's not going to be quite as fast as 512 MB of unified memory.
As for a cell-based desktop system, it's not hard to make one. But how do you mass produce one that people will buy? Apple was the last major manufacturer to not use x86 processors for home computers, and we can see how that went - straight into Intel's arms. The real question is, how much are people willing to pay for a Cell-based desktop computer? Answer: not enough when a $300 Dell can do everything a normal home user wants to do. Remember Pegasos? They don't make them anymore. That'd be the same fate for a Cell-based desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
Running on top and bootstrap are not the same thing. You can use DOS to bootstrap Linux also using the loadlin program, but that doesn't mean the Linux runs on top of DOS.
That doesn't mean that Windows 95 relied on DOS for much though, unlike Windows 3.1 which relied on DOS for file I/O operations. Windows 95 used DOS for 16-bit drivers that it didn't already have 32-bit versions of and other things.
Well, I'm posting this from my system running GNU/emacs. I refuse to go along with the general populace's notion of the GUI as the preferred UI. Things are much faster with keyboard combinations anyway.
HURD is just a kernel. The actual operating system is GNU, which can run on other kernels too (such as the NetBSD and FreeBSD kernels).
Windows 95 didn't run on top of DOS. It just used DOS to bootstrap itself and for compatibility with some 16-bit device drivers.
You've hit on one of my pet peeves man. Hell, DIAMONDS are oraganic, and so is pencil lead. They way these people use the term incorrectly drives me nuts.
Seriously.
I have a steering wheel attached to my belt now because of it.
Right on! And the people who use "pencil lead" instead of "graphite." I mean, lead was never used in pencils. It's just that those idiots who discovered graphite thought it really was lead. The audacity...
The problem is that even though there is evidence that some traditional therapies work, MDs have converted to 80% pharmaceuticals and 20% lifestyle changes, and they are trained in little else.
As an MD, I'll chime in. Obesity is an epidemic in this country and is best addressed by lifestyle changes. The problem with lifestyle change is that most patients are unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to change their health. It's that simple. On the other hand, there are certain genetic predispositions that require drugs for supplements if lifestyle change is ineffective: high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.
So if you don't want stimulants for your kid with ADHD (now they have straterra, but it isn't very effective), the MD offers nothing else. If you have trouble sleeping, their toolkit consists of hardcore hypnotics. Mild depression or anxiety? All they have are brain-altering and or addictive drugs. Indigestion? You'll probably be on calcium or cimetidine the rest of your life.
I don't deal with most of these, but trouble sleeping, mild depression, anxiety, indegestion, etc. all seem to have a lifestyle component. Now if the patient comes back and says that he/she can't change some lifestyle aspect (eg job stress, home stress, avoiding certain foods, etc), there's not much else to do but try the medications.
I suffered from daily stomach problems for over a decade and saw several MDs and never got anything resolved. The best they could do was cimetidine which barely provided any relief (they found no ulcer, but I had daily abdominal pain). I finally got so frustrated I saw a "quack" licensed naturopath and after cleaning out my diet and replacing my gut bacteria I'm finally pain free. I don't buy into the homeopathy or "cracking your back can cure your asthma" bullshit but thankfully there is exists some other profession that isn't 100% pharmaceuticals.
Looks like you did a lifestyle change. I'm surprised your physicians didn't ask you to take a food diary and go from there.
It's not because the hospitals are sterilizing. It's because people keep using antibiotics for things that are unnecessary that selects for antibiotic resistant bacteria such as MRSA. If and when vancomycin resistant Staph. becomes prevalent (I'm aware of 3 documented cases so far), we're in deep shit.
No kidding. MAC pretty much only causes problems in immunocompromised people (eg, people with HIV, cancer and on chemo, etc.).
Except slashcode is open source already isn't it?
Has anyone considered the effects on the AI of actually realising it's intelligent? Unlike an organism (Human baby, say) it will not realise this over a protracted period, and may not be able to cope with the concept at all, particularly if it realises that there are other intelligences (us?) which are fundamentally different to itself.
What possible evidence do you have for any of this? How do you know an AI is not an emergent phenomenon when it's first created?
It's quite possible that it will go mad as soon as it knows it's intelligent and considers all the implications and ramifications of this.
Again, where do you get this from? Do children go mad knowing it's intelligent, etc?
Wait a minute. What's the difference between "true intelligence" and "simulation of intelligence that can't be discerned from 'true intelligence'"? This is an issue philosophers have been dealing with for a while. The conclusion is that there is no difference.
The problem isn't that businesses litigate over patent disputes. The problem isn't even so-called "patent trolls". It's the legal framework that creates it; The deeper judicial and legal principles. Patents were meant to cover an applied technological advancement; Not a theoretical one, or to intangibles like a process. But the patent system has been expanded to cover these, and it was done in a haphazard fashion by people who didn't fully understand the implications of doing so.
The net result is that the patent system is being used to protect intangibles -- markets, processes, and "intellectual property". This was never the intend of the patent system. Even worse, the time limit of 7 to 14 years was needed due to slow business processes of the pre-computer era when it would take years to develop something and bring it to market. Now, development to market time can be weeks or months. While this was originally designed so that the inventor (an individual) could profit from his invention while safely making available details of how it worked to the public (thus advancing the state of the art), it nowadays functions as an impetiment to invention because of the long life of the patent and the nearly endless variations that are possible to keep basic inventions protected in perpetuity.
What's needed is a radical rethink of business process and economics, and the removal of the extreme reliance upon the legal system to protect it.
I agree with you in general. However, in this day and age of computers, there are quite a few industries where development to market is still in the order of years. Boeing's filed many patents on their upcoming 787. It's been in development for years. New classes of drugs take years to get approval, even drugs within the same family (although not as long as the first instance). As for cars, the average time to market for a new car is about 5 years.
Your figures are higher than they should be because the GPU and memory on ATI cards (and NVidia cards for that matter) can be downclocked with open source programs.
Someone mod parent up. Lab grown meat is the way to go for those ethically opposed to animal suffering. But the other benefits include freeing up more usable land, much more efficient and precise meat production, etc.
Superconducting wires? Bah, impossible! Time moves slower the faster you go? Bah, that's not even remotely correct! The earth is round? Bah, it's flat and carried on the backs of turtles all the way down!
American Motor Corporation. They made such venerable cars as the Gremlin and the Pacer and various Jeep models. Then they were bought by Chrysler. Now they're making movies for some reason.
Basically that 256MB of XDR kicks the crap out of 3-4GB of DDR2 or 2GB of DDR3 without thinking about it.
That is until you need more than 256 MB of memory. Then it goes to disk swap, and then even old SDRAM is faster.
Great, and how well does Open Office work on 256 MB of memory? Sure you can use it, but it's rather excruciating. I'd rather get a computer with more than 256 MB of memory to do all that stuff.
Three things:
Yes, that's why there's PS2 compatibility. Oh wait, there isn't so now I have to connect my PS2 to play PS2 games. Besides, how many people use their PS3 as the main computer anyway? I'd rather get a Dell computer that comes with more than 256 MB of RAM for my $400 thank you very much.
If you have an SDTV, you have to buy yet another box to convert the VGA signals from the PC to the composite or S-Video signals that the console understands.
And if you have your PS3 connected to an SDTV, you're wasting the entire purpose of the PS3: playing Blu-Ray and playing games in high definition.
Of course there are a million machines you can install Linux on, but the PS3 was particularly nice because of its Cell architecture. That allowed for some super-computer like performance for a low, low price. Lots of research institutions used PS3 clusters for low cost supercomputing. Now that future is jeopardized.
Lots? More like "barely any." The only entity that has done anything significant is IBM with their Roadrunner supercomputer. A network of several PS3s is not a supercomputer.
Despite the name, you didn't actually have to go online to play Phantasy Star Online.
Hmmm... sounds like something that happened with L. Ron Hubbard's books and his followers.
Yeah, I don't understand the Heaven's Gate reference. Are the developers going to commit mass suicide?
With regard to RAM, the graphics memory can be used as a higher priority swap device so that sort of gives ~512 MB of usable memory but granted it's not going to be quite as fast as 512 MB of unified memory.
As for a cell-based desktop system, it's not hard to make one. But how do you mass produce one that people will buy? Apple was the last major manufacturer to not use x86 processors for home computers, and we can see how that went - straight into Intel's arms. The real question is, how much are people willing to pay for a Cell-based desktop computer? Answer: not enough when a $300 Dell can do everything a normal home user wants to do. Remember Pegasos? They don't make them anymore. That'd be the same fate for a Cell-based desktop.