the CLI environment isn't for everyone, since it requires a good level of literacy.
At the risk of sounding like flamebait, what's wrong with that?
If you want to get the most out of the road system, you learn to drive. Or you could just take the bus.
If you want to get the most out of the library, you learn to read. Or you could just borrow videos.
If you want to get the most out of your computer, you learn the CLI. Or you could just point and click.
Isn't this a basic pattern seen in all sorts of systems?
I backup my data IN SPACE - I transmit to a satellite 5 light years away, I'll be a able to restore in 10 years when the transmission gets reflected back to earth.
AC jokes, but that's awfully close to how some early computer memory actually worked.
Delay Line Memory, it was called. Basically, you push bits onto a wire loop, and then when they come back around again on the guitar you read them and push them back on again.
That said, the seek time on your version is awful...
I am not exactly sure what it means to "double solder" something.
I'm not certain either, but here's how I picture it working.
Take four spots on a circuit board, all connected together.
oo ab
oo cd
Take one redundant wire end and solder it to both 'a' and 'b'. The second wire to 'c' and 'd'. Run both these wires together to a similar four spots on the destination circuit board. Repeat as needed.
Mind you, that's a guess, but that's how I'd do it.
I guess I must be unclear on what ReadyBoost is, then. From MS's page it sure sounds like "priority swap to USB", only they try to couche the whole thing in ambiguity. What is it, then, if not this?
Say you have a memory stick installed and recognized as/dev/sda. Use cfdisk to create partition 1, type 82. mkswap/dev/sda1, then swapon -p 100/dev/sda1.
You could also use a file within a file system on the memory stick, with mkfile and mkswap followed by swapon, but that would have higher overhead so lower performance.
It's probably not typical, but I used my tenth birthday for science. On that day, I discovered that time travel would not become available during my lifetime. The mechanism should be obvious.
Expressions (religious symbols, in this case) affirm.
Hmm, but do they have to? Having a foreskin after 8 days of age is a better indicator of non-Jewishness than not having one is of being a Jew. Still, you wouldn't say that circumcision isn't a religious and symbolic thing to Jews.
I'm thinking that if something (or the lack of something) can be seen as a religious symbol, then it ipso facto is, regardless of the accuracy of that perception.
AC pokes at my assumptions but fails to undermine the inherent absurdity. In the first case, the original conflict holds, and in the second, it just moves the contradiction to a different point.
not clothed => Jain (point 1 in the Parent post)
clothed => not Jain (point 2 in the Parent post)
But, if the initial assumption does not hold then we cannot make these arguments. Let's say that a group of people lost all of their clothes (they were stolen while they slept, maybe). It is clear to everyone that if none of a group of people had any clothes, then we could not conclude anything about their being Jain or not based on their state of dress?
The point here is not that clothed means "not Jain", but that it implies (rightly or wrongly) "not Jain." It's still a religious symbol, even if it's inaccurately applied due to other circumstances, and so the original contradiction still exists.
A law which requires everyone to wear clothes is also a case where the initial assumption does not hold.
Here the contradiction is between the law requiring clothes and the fact that clothes inherently convey a religious message, so "you must wear clothes that convey no religious message" is an impossible condition.
Yes, I glossed over some things, like not all Jains go naked, but it's not truly important to the argument. Replace "Jain" with "Digambar monk" and the argument gets more accurate but much harder to follow, don't you think?
I did say "line printer," so I'm implying fanfold paper. As for security, it's as secure as the room you put it in. Who do you trust to get into that room? Any solution will come down to that question at some point.
Really. The AC is right; there can be no general solution. See also this article; search for Turing.
The approach you suggest, of "search for X, Y, and Z known bad things and don't allow them" is also a loser. For more on that, see
Gödel, Escher, Bach, especially the part about "This record cannot be played on record player X."
Experience with ABS systems on cars indicates that it encourages drivers to brake more aggressively.
Yeah, that's the training; if you need to stop urgently, depress the brake and let the computer worry about static vs. dynamic friction. That's what it's for.
Some will abuse that technology by cutting people off and braking.
That's not a problem with the technology. The problem is that
some people are jerks.
Jerks will similarly try to abuse this technology with such measures as rubber gloves, sunglasses... I hesitate to imagine. But there are two problems with this tech. The second is that it will probably pass costs of implementation along to the innocent,
but the first is that it won't stop people who are intent on
being jerks.
I have used the word "jerk" above, but you probably know the word I really mean.
Taking money from an ATM that is wrongly configured is also a crime.
Since ATMs are opaque and you cannot see the contents of the money
bins until you have taken money out, you have to do the "crime"
before you can know that the ATM is misconfigured. Thus you are
already a criminal. That doesn't make sense. Crime has to have
an element of intent. If your only intent was to withdraw money
owned by you from your own account, clearly no wrongdoing
was intended.
But going back for seconds, after having noticed the mistake...
now you're talking criminal intent.
Well-yeah-sorta. In terms of organic vs. inorganic chemistry, paper has carbon so it qualifies as organic. But paper's mostly cellulose, (C6H10O5)n, so it isn't mostly carbon by weight, and certainly not all carbon like this new material.
(While I'm thinking of it, why do organic vegetables cost more? They're all organic...)
Slashdot Mirror
At the risk of sounding like flamebait, what's wrong with that?
If you want to get the most out of the road system, you learn to drive. Or you could just take the bus.
If you want to get the most out of the library, you learn to read. Or you could just borrow videos.
If you want to get the most out of your computer, you learn the CLI. Or you could just point and click.
Isn't this a basic pattern seen in all sorts of systems?
Nice, but does it drive in random directions if someone has set loose a bag of magnetic marbles on the road? I'd have a hard time trusting this.
mollymoo spake:
With that username, you will probably never forget the name for the covers that ought to have been covering those switches: The Molly-Guard.
AC jokes, but that's awfully close to how some early computer memory actually worked.
Delay Line Memory, it was called. Basically, you push bits onto a wire loop, and then when they come back around again on the guitar you read them and push them back on again.
That said, the seek time on your version is awful...
I'm not certain either, but here's how I picture it working.
Take four spots on a circuit board, all connected together.
oo ab
oo cd
Take one redundant wire end and solder it to both 'a' and 'b'. The second wire to 'c' and 'd'. Run both these wires together to a similar four spots on the destination circuit board. Repeat as needed.
Mind you, that's a guess, but that's how I'd do it.
"We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram".
I share your curiosity. Sounds like someone, somewhere, had a hippo-potty-mouth.
I guess I must be unclear on what ReadyBoost is, then. From MS's page it sure sounds like "priority swap to USB", only they try to couche the whole thing in ambiguity. What is it, then, if not this?
Easy.
Say you have a memory stick installed and recognized as /dev/sda. Use cfdisk to create partition 1, type 82. mkswap /dev/sda1, then swapon -p 100 /dev/sda1.
You could also use a file within a file system on the memory stick, with mkfile and mkswap followed by swapon, but that would have higher overhead so lower performance.
It's probably not typical, but I used my tenth birthday for science. On that day, I discovered that time travel would not become available during my lifetime. The mechanism should be obvious.
Also because Myanmar-Shave just sounds silly.
Hmm, but do they have to? Having a foreskin after 8 days of age is a better indicator of non-Jewishness than not having one is of being a Jew. Still, you wouldn't say that circumcision isn't a religious and symbolic thing to Jews.
I'm thinking that if something (or the lack of something) can be seen as a religious symbol, then it ipso facto is, regardless of the accuracy of that perception.
AC pokes at my assumptions but fails to undermine the inherent absurdity. In the first case, the original conflict holds, and in the second, it just moves the contradiction to a different point.
The point here is not that clothed means "not Jain", but that it implies (rightly or wrongly) "not Jain." It's still a religious symbol, even if it's inaccurately applied due to other circumstances, and so the original contradiction still exists.
Here the contradiction is between the law requiring clothes and the fact that clothes inherently convey a religious message, so "you must wear clothes that convey no religious message" is an impossible condition.
Yes, I glossed over some things, like not all Jains go naked, but it's not truly important to the argument. Replace "Jain" with "Digambar monk" and the argument gets more accurate but much harder to follow, don't you think?
Let's take this to its logical conclusion.
Therefore, it is forbidden to be naked, and it is forbidden to be clothed. So nakedness is both forbidden and mandatory.
Clever, that.
I did say "line printer," so I'm implying fanfold paper. As for security, it's as secure as the room you put it in. Who do you trust to get into that room? Any solution will come down to that question at some point.
Really. The AC is right; there can be no general solution. See also this article; search for Turing.
The approach you suggest, of "search for X, Y, and Z known bad things and don't allow them" is also a loser. For more on that, see Gödel, Escher, Bach, especially the part about "This record cannot be played on record player X."
The ghost of the Entscheidungsproblem descends, with malice in its eyes.
*smack* Oof.
You are dealt 2501 hit points of damage.
Hint: there is no way to programatically determine whether a given program is malicious or not, for any sufficiently interesting system.
Yeah, that's the training; if you need to stop urgently, depress the brake and let the computer worry about static vs. dynamic friction. That's what it's for.
Some will abuse that technology by cutting people off and braking. That's not a problem with the technology. The problem is that some people are jerks.
Jerks will similarly try to abuse this technology with such measures as rubber gloves, sunglasses... I hesitate to imagine. But there are two problems with this tech. The second is that it will probably pass costs of implementation along to the innocent, but the first is that it won't stop people who are intent on being jerks.
I have used the word "jerk" above, but you probably know the word I really mean.
Nothing is an unalterable as a line printer which lacks reverse-vertical-paging capability. Just make sure it doesn't run out of ink or paper.
Are you saying that intent is, itself, a level of intent? That sort of makes sense, but it also sort of hurts my brain.
Since ATMs are opaque and you cannot see the contents of the money bins until you have taken money out, you have to do the "crime" before you can know that the ATM is misconfigured. Thus you are already a criminal. That doesn't make sense. Crime has to have an element of intent. If your only intent was to withdraw money owned by you from your own account, clearly no wrongdoing was intended.
But going back for seconds, after having noticed the mistake... now you're talking criminal intent.
Well-yeah-sorta. In terms of organic vs. inorganic chemistry, paper has carbon so it qualifies as organic. But paper's mostly cellulose, (C6H10O5)n, so it isn't mostly carbon by weight, and certainly not all carbon like this new material.
(While I'm thinking of it, why do organic vegetables cost more? They're all organic...)
%SYSFWTF-E-AM, Irony overload
$
Cohesion? <Inigo>I do not think that word means what you think it means.</Inigo>
Cohesion is how much stuff tends to stick to other stuff of the same type. Unless there's a meaning of which I am unaware, it's not remotely illegal.
If you've got the source to 3dsmax, there's bound to be an API like 'nice' that you can insert to drop priority.
If not, it might possibly work to rename 3dsmax.exe to 3dsmax_real.exe and write 3dsmax.bat (this depends entirely on how the code was written):
Actually, if that doesn't work, you could do basically the same thing in a C wrapper program to be called 3dsmax.exe.