If you know you get the right answer exactly 10% of the time, and you had fewer than 10 possible outcomes, you'd bet on every (or any) outcome except the one predicted.
From Publishers Weekly Co-author with the late Richard Herrnstein of the neo-racialist book The Bell Curve, Murray returns with a mammoth solo investigation that is less likely to spur controversy than provoke a simple "so what?" The book attempts to demonstrate, through the use of basic statistical methods such as regression analysis, that Europeans have overwhelmingly dominated accomplishment in the arts and sciences since about 1400. To this end, he has assembled a laundry list of people and events from various reference texts, and generated numerous graphs and rankings of genius figures: is Beethoven "more important" than Bach? Leonardo Da Vinci than Michelangelo? A major problem with this approach-beyond equating "importance" with the number of times an artist or work is referenced in texts-is that the reference texts used as data sources do not themselves seem free of cultural bias or chauvinism: without asking "important to whom," the Western-centric data are a self-fulfilling prophecy. Another problem is that other, less affluent cultures may have had many plundered or lost works, or may not have a tradition of naming writers and other luminaries-or keeping track of and promoting their works through secondary material. Further, plenty of attention is lavished on forms such as painting but comparatively little to architecture or to non-Western forms of music. The book's cursory treatment of Africa (outside of Egypt) also leaves more to be desired. Murray claims to have corrected for these factors, and finds that Western culture still dominates "accomplishment" either way. The chapters describing achievement at the book's beginning are, at many points, well-written and informative, but they end up clouded with the latter part of the book's numerical hubris and grand pronouncements. Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Besides, even if one ignores the self-fulfilling nature of the data, it seems far more likely (advancements mostly coming from heretics, and all) that if there really is correlation, it would be the hatred of church dogma that spurned scientific advancements by and large.
Every prime greater than 3 is expressible in the form 6n+1 or 6n-1, where n is an integer. Easy to prove, but lots of people don't see it at first. For example, 5 = 6(1)-1; 53 = 6(9)-1; 43 = 6(7)+1
oxygen at very high concentrations is actually toxic.:-) the higher the atmospheric pressure, the more toxic it gets actually (IIRC). so the "move to a well ventilated area" part does make sense.
i really have no idea why you are having problems with X under debian... jeez. If you've had it working on one computer on Slackware, it should be pretty much straight forward to get it running on the same computer running debian. your post sounded like that's what you were trying to do. if not, may as well try installing slackware on that machine, then copying the XF86Config (-4) to a disk, and installing debian, copying it back over. Better yet, study the damn file, and find out why it works.
Besides, configuring X is so so so easy these days. So long as you have a chipset that wasnt made in Rwanda in 1943 or something, it really shouldnt be that hard. A few years ago, it was a slightly different story though.
if you have an internet connection, getting X configured is even easier, someone's done it before and documented it with almost any piece of hardware.
for this whole post though, i've been assuming you're having trouble configuring it, not installing it though. I don't often use debian (only when I'm helping my friends out with their boxes' problems), but i've heard that installations on debian are some of the easiest out there.... personally, though emerge (gentoo, of course) works so well for me, it's hard to imagine apt-get any better.
If i've made any glaring errors, please correct. I welcome new info.
Sometimes I think that the linux community (and extrapolating to the free software community in general) should take a little bit from Theo de Raadt's philosophy (and extrapolating, the OpenBSD community's):
There's none of this "We need to convince these windows users" crap. They code, write, etc. solely for their community. What the community as a whole wants, the community as a whole (most of the time) gets... Now Theo, imho, goes way too far, to the point where one could pretty much picture him grabbing a newbie and shaking him, shouting "i dont give a damn about you, boy!" in his face.
but i really think it's detrimental to free software development to put a huge amount of stress on advertising and evangelism... After a point, let the product speak and evangelize for itself.
after all, why do you even care whether the rest of your street is using windows. Sure, there are a few minor reasons, and you don't want MS to keep their stranglehold on the people... but don't try to kid yourself into believing your such an altruist that you so vehemently proselytize without realizing why. Or what you already have.
Any company that gets 1 million resumes a year and: can't buy 1M * 50K max (compressed)= 50GB =~ $60 worth of storage a year DESERVES to get fined. And yes, they were complaining about electronic resumes. Granted, if they got 1 million physical resumes, they might need to hire a single pathetic high-school kid to heap the pages and run them through a b/w, low-res scanner with a shredder on the other end.
Goddess, people fucking complain about the stupidest things!
Granted, they may have found a left-hand rule for electromagnetic radiation, but doesn't a material need to let light pass through it in order for its refractive index to mean anything? And last time i saw see-through copper, i was shrooming.;-) To me, what seems most interesting about this is that it has the properties of negative electric permittivity and permeability. If i'm missing something, please explain, but how would a material made of "ordinary" copper rings and wires refract light? So, in response to a previous poster, personally, i really don't see smaller glasses in the future. The fact that it already works with microwaves though, is very neat.
sorry, you're utterly wrong on that point: since a _long_ time ago (0.9?), you've been able to tie multiple POPs to a single identity, each of which will have its own "from" address. Of course, you only ever really need one smtp server.
...but reversed. if he had the patent and was given fair compensation, what would stop him from selling licenses to other companies, thus not giving the company the monopoly that it paid the inventor for?
the only real way I see it working would be to specify a percentage of revenues for all patent outcomes that the scientist gets, and perhaps specify in the contract that for a period of X years, he could not license the patent to anyone else.
In fact, it has and can be easily shown that by solving "the factoring problem" (as it's oh-so-vulgarly put) or the discrete log problem of classical public key cryptosystems, one solves EC's. The problems are extensions of one another, and the solution to one is trivially deducible from the solution to another. your statement was like saying "unlike Webster's Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictonary has no words in it" - pure and utter nonsense. gibberish.
All ECC's are (in boiled-down essence), is a Discrete Log problem on a cubic whose solutions are confined to a torus. (i.e. 'elliptic curve'). while it's true that the keysize needed for secure ECC is much, much smaller and increases much much more slowly than either DL (discrete log) or IF (integer factorization) [both of which are essentially exactly the same] systems, this has to do with the way the field is set up and how the keys correspond.
most of their code is non-GPL, closed and proprietary. the reason this isn't for public consumption yet (i.e. free) is that they haven't figured out a legal loophole yet that will allow them to break the GPL to ship their crap.
at least this is my understanding, from what i've read on their site only. if i'm wrong, please correct. otherwise, someone please tell me how they're selling this legally outside their "beta testers" in the group thing?
come off it, man! I could spend 1 billion in under a year. easy. first, a huge amount of money given to the vairous distributions of linux and *bsd that I think are best-run. even 500 million distributed would be only a decent sum for this. i want at least a smidgen of competitive possibility w/ MS. Second, pay the big hardware companies to support non-windows OS's with their releases. third, a boeing 737 for me, with all the furniture ripped out and re-decorated a hotel or five in various cities around the world 24-hour entourage of highly-paid and highly skilled butlers/servants, etc. legal protection for various legislative lobbying that i choose usual crap about ecology, but i really dont want to see some of the rare species extinct during my lifetime eradicate malaria (easily done, with enough money) have fun with the stock market ("hahaha you want to buy this stock? not likely [as price soars]... keep buying, fool! [immediately flood market as people catch on that i'm buying shitloads]") buy a small country and become the only benign, incorruptible dictator in the history of the world move the guiness, kilkenny/smithwicks, harp, boddingtons, murphys, etc breweries to my neighborhood
etc. etc. etc. etc. even the realistic, not-tongue-in-cheeck things on that list above sum well into the $20 bn mark. PLUS, think of being able to veg. in a reclining chair with a ceiling monitor (i.e. the ceiling = the monitor) with a OC-48 connection to the internet and never have to work again. damn, i even forgot the world's biggest yacht with my own supply of nicely water-cooled dom perignon, chateau rothschild (not cooled, obviously), etc. *sigh*. I'm going to be depressed again for the rest of the day.
i think you've got causation the wrong way round there: it's tyrants and dictators that can easily step in after democratization and the coming of capitalism has made everyone poor. Remember, a free market economy is only desirable after a certain amount of time, when it has stabilized, and everyone is getting (relatively) rich.
I agree though that an upper limit is not a good idea, and it wouldn't solve anything at all. If you reach the upper limit, and you knew that all your money would go to someone else, why the hell would you ever work more (unless feeling charitable)? These people's money (on the whole) is coming not from poor people, but from investors (who are usually not exactly poor, and as the company succeeds, get richer). There are obvious exceptions, but i've made my point.
well, the 13 part is easy: COPA makes it illegal to collect information on anyone under 13, so they wouldn't be able to get your address to send you the stuff if you're under 13.
I got confused about the 34 part too, though. but after some google searching, I found some things (including a wierdly titled Salvation army page... Anyone care to explain the 34 here?).. but max age for ROTC is 30, but " waiverable to age 34 in certain circumstances"... most importantly, apparently the max age for enlisting in the army is 34 years old, according to this table (incidentally, it's the same for the navy, but 27 for the AF and Coast guard and 28 for the Marine Corps [a.k.a. Uncle Sam's Misguided Children]/USMC)
what, may i ask, is the point of putting a mirror of the original on the original? i've been comparing the URLS for about 3 minutes trying to spot a difference, but either i'm blind or i can't see the point
Mozilla, when set to block unwanted popups means JUST that.... it blocks popups that are unrequested and come just from opening the page... anything that pops up later when you click on something is not blocked.
For example: StegFS: the Steganographic Linux Filesystem from 1999 Information Hiding proceedings A TEMPEST variation for hiding data, "Soft tempest", from IH'98 A One-time password package intended for login or ftpd and some other stuff.... cool guy!
Slashdot Mirror
If you know you get the right answer exactly 10% of the time, and you had fewer than 10 possible outcomes, you'd bet on every (or any) outcome except the one predicted.
From Publishers Weekly
Co-author with the late Richard Herrnstein of the neo-racialist book The Bell Curve, Murray returns with a mammoth solo investigation that is less likely to spur controversy than provoke a simple "so what?" The book attempts to demonstrate, through the use of basic statistical methods such as regression analysis, that Europeans have overwhelmingly dominated accomplishment in the arts and sciences since about 1400. To this end, he has assembled a laundry list of people and events from various reference texts, and generated numerous graphs and rankings of genius figures: is Beethoven "more important" than Bach? Leonardo Da Vinci than Michelangelo? A major problem with this approach-beyond equating "importance" with the number of times an artist or work is referenced in texts-is that the reference texts used as data sources do not themselves seem free of cultural bias or chauvinism: without asking "important to whom," the Western-centric data are a self-fulfilling prophecy. Another problem is that other, less affluent cultures may have had many plundered or lost works, or may not have a tradition of naming writers and other luminaries-or keeping track of and promoting their works through secondary material. Further, plenty of attention is lavished on forms such as painting but comparatively little to architecture or to non-Western forms of music. The book's cursory treatment of Africa (outside of Egypt) also leaves more to be desired. Murray claims to have corrected for these factors, and finds that Western culture still dominates "accomplishment" either way. The chapters describing achievement at the book's beginning are, at many points, well-written and informative, but they end up clouded with the latter part of the book's numerical hubris and grand pronouncements.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Besides, even if one ignores the self-fulfilling nature of the data, it seems far more likely (advancements mostly coming from heretics, and all) that if there really is correlation, it would be the hatred of church dogma that spurned scientific advancements by and large.
Hell, a little acid and a snort or two of the finest white powders, and you dont even need a computer. The wires will speak to you.
Every prime greater than 3 is expressible in the form 6n+1 or 6n-1, where n is an integer. Easy to prove, but lots of people don't see it at first. For example, 5 = 6(1)-1; 53 = 6(9)-1; 43 = 6(7)+1
etc
oxygen at very high concentrations is actually toxic. :-)
the higher the atmospheric pressure, the more toxic it gets actually (IIRC). so the "move to a well ventilated area" part does make sense.
Besides, configuring X is so so so easy these days. So long as you have a chipset that wasnt made in Rwanda in 1943 or something, it really shouldnt be that hard. A few years ago, it was a slightly different story though.
if you have an internet connection, getting X configured is even easier, someone's done it before and documented it with almost any piece of hardware.
for this whole post though, i've been assuming you're having trouble configuring it, not installing it though. I don't often use debian (only when I'm helping my friends out with their boxes' problems), but i've heard that installations on debian are some of the easiest out there.... personally, though emerge (gentoo, of course) works so well for me, it's hard to imagine apt-get any better.
If i've made any glaring errors, please correct. I welcome new info.
Sometimes I think that the linux community (and extrapolating to the free software community in general) should take a little bit from Theo de Raadt's philosophy (and extrapolating, the OpenBSD community's):
There's none of this "We need to convince these windows users" crap. They code, write, etc. solely for their community. What the community as a whole wants, the community as a whole (most of the time) gets... Now Theo, imho, goes way too far, to the point where one could pretty much picture him grabbing a newbie and shaking him, shouting "i dont give a damn about you, boy!" in his face.
but i really think it's detrimental to free software development to put a huge amount of stress on advertising and evangelism... After a point, let the product speak and evangelize for itself.
after all, why do you even care whether the rest of your street is using windows. Sure, there are a few minor reasons, and you don't want MS to keep their stranglehold on the people... but don't try to kid yourself into believing your such an altruist that you so vehemently proselytize without realizing why. Or what you already have.
done that too many times before. heh.
such a great shortcut/workaround/whatever, and i forget to add +x
*sigh*
Any company that gets 1 million resumes a year and: can't buy 1M * 50K max (compressed)= 50GB =~ $60 worth of storage a year DESERVES to get fined. And yes, they were complaining about electronic resumes.
Granted, if they got 1 million physical resumes, they might need to hire a single pathetic high-school kid to heap the pages and run them through a b/w, low-res scanner with a shredder on the other end.
Goddess, people fucking complain about the stupidest things!
it was slow for a while, but seems to be working well now....
AmigaOS , WinTel, and More Screenshots, all thanks to The Internet Archive
Granted, they may have found a left-hand rule for electromagnetic radiation, but doesn't a material need to let light pass through it in order for its refractive index to mean anything? And last time i saw see-through copper, i was shrooming.
To me, what seems most interesting about this is that it has the properties of negative electric permittivity and permeability.
If i'm missing something, please explain, but how would a material made of "ordinary" copper rings and wires refract light? So, in response to a previous poster, personally, i really don't see smaller glasses in the future. The fact that it already works with microwaves though, is very neat.
Cheers
the only real way I see it working would be to specify a percentage of revenues for all patent outcomes that the scientist gets, and perhaps specify in the contract that for a period of X years, he could not license the patent to anyone else.
Comments?
In fact, it has and can be easily shown that by solving "the factoring problem" (as it's oh-so-vulgarly put) or the discrete log problem of classical public key cryptosystems, one solves EC's. The problems are extensions of one another, and the solution to one is trivially deducible from the solution to another.
your statement was like saying "unlike Webster's Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictonary has no words in it" - pure and utter nonsense. gibberish.
All ECC's are (in boiled-down essence), is a Discrete Log problem on a cubic whose solutions are confined to a torus. (i.e. 'elliptic curve').
while it's true that the keysize needed for secure ECC is much, much smaller and increases much much more slowly than either DL (discrete log) or IF (integer factorization) [both of which are essentially exactly the same] systems, this has to do with the way the field is set up and how the keys correspond.
the reason this isn't for public consumption yet (i.e. free) is that they haven't figured out a legal loophole yet that will allow them to break the GPL to ship their crap.
at least this is my understanding, from what i've read on their site only. if i'm wrong, please correct.
otherwise, someone please tell me how they're selling this legally outside their "beta testers" in the group thing?
Second, pay the big hardware companies to support non-windows OS's with their releases.
third, a boeing 737 for me, with all the furniture ripped out and re-decorated
a hotel or five in various cities around the world
24-hour entourage of highly-paid and highly skilled butlers/servants, etc.
legal protection for various legislative lobbying that i choose
usual crap about ecology, but i really dont want to see some of the rare species extinct during my lifetime
eradicate malaria (easily done, with enough money)
have fun with the stock market ("hahaha you want to buy this stock? not likely [as price soars]... keep buying, fool! [immediately flood market as people catch on that i'm buying shitloads]")
buy a small country and become the only benign, incorruptible dictator in the history of the world
move the guiness, kilkenny/smithwicks, harp, boddingtons, murphys, etc breweries to my neighborhood
etc. etc. etc. etc. even the realistic, not-tongue-in-cheeck things on that list above sum well into the $20 bn mark.
PLUS, think of being able to veg. in a reclining chair with a ceiling monitor (i.e. the ceiling = the monitor) with a OC-48 connection to the internet and never have to work again. damn, i even forgot the world's biggest yacht with my own supply of nicely water-cooled dom perignon, chateau rothschild (not cooled, obviously), etc. *sigh*.
I'm going to be depressed again for the rest of the day.
I agree though that an upper limit is not a good idea, and it wouldn't solve anything at all. If you reach the upper limit, and you knew that all your money would go to someone else, why the hell would you ever work more (unless feeling charitable)? These people's money (on the whole) is coming not from poor people, but from investors (who are usually not exactly poor, and as the company succeeds, get richer). There are obvious exceptions, but i've made my point.
I got confused about the 34 part too, though. but after some google searching, I found some things (including a wierdly titled Salvation army page... Anyone care to explain the 34 here?).. but max age for ROTC is 30, but " waiverable to age 34 in certain circumstances"...
most importantly, apparently the max age for enlisting in the army is 34 years old, according to this table (incidentally, it's the same for the navy, but 27 for the AF and Coast guard and 28 for the Marine Corps [a.k.a. Uncle Sam's Misguided Children]/USMC)
Here is the site... and the flash intro.
does anyone know when/where it will be released? an official army website for the game would be cool
what, may i ask, is the point of putting a mirror of the original on the original? i've been comparing the URLS for about 3 minutes trying to spot a difference, but either i'm blind or i can't see the point
Mozilla, when set to block unwanted popups means JUST that.... it blocks popups that are unrequested and come just from opening the page... anything that pops up later when you click on something is not blocked.
If someone could explain the concepts, it would be great. Cheers.
For example:
StegFS: the Steganographic Linux Filesystem from 1999 Information Hiding proceedings
A TEMPEST variation for hiding data, "Soft tempest", from IH'98
A One-time password package intended for login or ftpd
and some other stuff.... cool guy!