I don't think it's much different than a judge being a member of an organization lobbying for tougher murder penalties, etc.
Agreed.
We wouldn't exclude him from murder trials.
Maybe we would, there's clearly a conflict there. No person should preside over a trial where they've got a horse in the race(personal feeling, time, money, revenge, or perhaps they're being altruistic). A judge should not be a activist in an area the trial touches...one way or the other. Unbiased is essentially being neutral. The unbiased argument fails in such a scenario.
That's interesting since OP(in relation to conversation) went out of their way to spread misinformation about base of my profession. Any single point of misinformation presented would take a negligible amount of time to actually look up, and I seriously did find it disheartening to see an educator say those things.
From my perspective, the OP is either guilty of gross negligence or lying. In my book, being guilty of either calls for harsh consequences. Hopefully, the OP or a reader somewhere will take the lesson to not post a supposed fact without having some background in the area first. If so, then from my point of view, my being an asshole paid dividends and the world is a better place for it.
Also for what it's worth, I'm typically much more personable when it comes to "helping" others, it's just that such ignorance in the above is unpalatable to me.
* the -j/-z options are new in FreeBSE 7. They dont exist in other/older implementations
What is it with you retarded linux fanbois. It would take you http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=tar&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.0-RELEASE&format=html
Yeah, that was released over 4 years ago.
* a help options simply listing the commands w/o explanation is useless. you shouldnt have to consult the man pages to see a short description
That personal preference, not a fact. If you want to have pervasive -h availability, don't use FreeBSD. I don't see the upside, but knock yourself out.
* your "syscall bs" is nonsense. It's like "go read the source luke"...
duh...you do understand we're talking about fucking system calls right? Why would want them documented other than in a logical organized, centralized location.
Do you see the -jz switches, cause I sure do. Maybe you could get a clue before you're put in a position of "teaching". Another sad mark reflecting the lack of rigor in our educational standards. Talk about the blind leading the blind.
Also on bsd utilities, -h(if it exists) assumes you have some basic knowledge of the command. Otherwise that is what man(1) is for.
In response to you syscall bs, you can reference this file:/usr/src/sys/kern/syscalls.master or this one for linux syscalls:/usr/src/sys/i386/linux/syscalls.master. Wow even easier than apropos returning jumbled garbage. Imagine that. I'm also going to share a really special trick, you can even use grep(or other utils) on those files to return specific info you're targeting.
Horatio, one of us here doesn't know what the fuck we're talking about and I'm betting it's not me.
I once built a case out of a cardboard box(and the handyman's secret weapon). True story, ISP I worked at was too cheap to actually purchase even a low end system(major irritation since a $6000 Mac was sitting across the hall I've hated them ever since). Now this was well after the time period you reference in your post, as I ended up with 4 -5 different HD which totaled about 1.5GB in available space. It was on this unit I constructed my first freebsd system running 2.2.8 w/ X and some faux Win 95 interface. The grey beard on-site was rather amazed it worked, since this setup used two power supplies and they were not operating in redundant fashion. I needed two to power all the HD, FD, CD-ROM components. Hobo worked quite well for a long time.
Anyways, that's a really long way of telling you don't let a little thing like inadequate case space stand in the way of getting it done.
How does Google News gain an advantage it otherwise couldn't without google. The news aggregation is all internal to google news, and while I can't prove it I would imagine you could plug it into virtually any webcrawl generated index if even uses those results.
My experience with memtest is you can trust the results if it says the memory is bad, however if the memory passed it could still be bad. Troubleshooting your scenario should involve replacing the DIMM's in questions with known good modules while running Windows.
There's two people I work with who are convinced global warming is some sort of liberal fraud. Should I list their names here too since they are as exactly relevant to this thread as Owsley Stanley?
At first I was wondering if you were merely being facetious, but in light of your last response it seems spun pegged you right away. In regards to spun modding you down, had he done so then posting to this thread would have discounted all those points, so this whole event really isn't saying much good about your so-called "critical-rationalism" now is it?
But you don't think the original quote is pure invention?...interesting. My entire basic point is she's creating hypothetical that don't have a history in specific relation to Google. Varney's choice of those words is subject to scrutiny in this case because there is no direct cause to bring it up. Extrapolating cause from this bring you back to an anti-trust suit as a perfectly logical endpoint.
Huh?
I'm not sure what was so confusing about that so here's some more reference for you: http://code.google.com/apis/maps/terms.html Section 4.3 specifically. I'm sure there's more like that.
I actually quite disagree with her that Microsoft is a problem of the past, but on the other hand I do see their power as waning.
Yeah I think they're in decline, but I think we're in the eye of storm now. MS be as fierce going out as coming in and their demise will take much longer. They didn't get to where they because they had the best products.
It certainly does not imply that she will pursue anti-trust action against Google regardless of whether there are any allegations of discrimination or not. That makes no sense regardless of how you read her sentence.
I didn't phrase that first part well. I meant it seems she implied she would pursue action if any complaint was filed. I don't think it would be too much to ask to put in a credible qualifier and I rest my case with the widespread reaction of/. users. It's not limited to just us even if it's more pronounced here.
It's The Future(tm). Cloud computing has become the dominant paradigm, and due to its popularity Google Apps is the MS Office of its day. Over time, Google introduces subtle and undocumented changes to their formerly free and open API which break other apps, and/or begins utilizing features in their native Apps that aren't available through the api which prevents documents from being read in other environments.
Basically the same story as Windows/Office, only "on the internet".
I'd like to think that by the time net apps are popular enough for this to even be possible that people will have mostly wised up to the problems of lock-in. I'd also like to think that Google really is less evil than Microsoft and they'll decide that openness is ultimately better for them than trying to abuse their monopoly. Hell, maybe knowing the top anti-trust regulator is paying attention will be all it takes to ensure this doesn't happen.
I think for the most part we're on the same page here as that's basically all I could come with as well. However, given the list of points you'd like to see happen(of which we are also in agreement and I think likely will occur in general) as well as Google's history and MO, I fail to see why she would think a credible complaint is likely to arise. I'm not saying it's not possible, just not likely IMO.
The closest complaint I can spin up is a third party uses SDK/API which abuse cloud network or processing in violation of TOS. I fail to see why that would be credible unless TOS limits are set impracticability low. That why it seems like she's drumming up charges. That could easily changes if Google alters it's philosophy.
Unless you meant going back to finish the job on Microsoft. I think that'd be hard; they were tried and convicted. It would take new allegations. I'm not sure how much traction there'd be for that even in the Obama administration.
I meant both but mostly going after Microsoft again. I think there are enough violations in other areas(like those hidden API's you mentioned) to avoid any double jeopardy conflict. And yes, there would limited support for this effort.
"there will be companies that will begin to allege that Google is discriminating"
The vast majority is of Google's cloud computing is given away free(so people will use their products). To the best my knowledge, they have a fairly open sdk and tos. I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario like the text you quoted(the quote seems so imply it's inevitable so it's more fair to interpret it as a promise of action). Can you provide a hypothetical?
Seriously, what's the issue with having an anti-trust chief who is aware of and intends to keep an eye on potential future problems? If regulators had been keeping a closer eye on Microsoft, then maybe U.S. vs Microsoft would have happened early enough to actually make a difference.
So when many families suffer catastrophic financial difficulties due legal fees and lack of income due to incarceration that's not a consideration? Poverty goes hand in hand with crime and violence and putting family member including young children behind the statistical 8-ball sure isn't helping the overall crime rate. Rehabilitation is a far better option in nearly every circumstance.
and now on to your deterrent statement. While there may be a few exceptions as with anything, most people would rather pay a few million than spend a year, three, or 8 incarcerated. A ten year maximum sentence vs a five year one isn't really going to stop anyone from proceeding with their crime.
Even still the PC industry is definitely MUCH bigger
Well if the poster had said that I wouldn't have made my comment right? If this article was about hardware manufacturers capitulating on DRM, then I would be in agreement. As it stands, this makes perfect sense from M$'s standpoint.
M$ has a huge vested interest in making sure media doesn't start work well in FOSS. The minute FOSS OS's using multimedia in a comprehensive, and easy(as in OOBE) format to streaming stuff like wmv's, netflix, etc, it becomes much more attractive to the average consumer. Placating media companies with integrated DRM is an easy way to insure new technologies on developed on M$ products. So it is not so much wag the dog as it is dog chasing tail in a metaphorical since.
And we are talking about M$ in this instance right? Last time I installed IBM software it didn't prevent from doing certain activities and HP doesn't produce a lot of desktop operating systems now does it?
Again, bullshit. The point I responded to was that M$ dwarfed anything in existence and is a modern day Wesayso corporation which is clearly a statement made up on the spot.
Slashdot Mirror
I had 5 screwups on 1 order. I quit pursuing it and tigerdirect at that point.
I don't think it's much different than a judge being a member of an organization lobbying for tougher murder penalties, etc.
Agreed.
We wouldn't exclude him from murder trials.
Maybe we would, there's clearly a conflict there. No person should preside over a trial where they've got a horse in the race(personal feeling, time, money, revenge, or perhaps they're being altruistic). A judge should not be a activist in an area the trial touches...one way or the other. Unbiased is essentially being neutral. The unbiased argument fails in such a scenario.
Maybe because the "general mood on Slashdot" is completely and utterly irrelevant to people who might be interested in such a solution?
Oh, thanks for sharing.
That isn't secret twitter code....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet
That's interesting since OP(in relation to conversation) went out of their way to spread misinformation about base of my profession. Any single point of misinformation presented would take a negligible amount of time to actually look up, and I seriously did find it disheartening to see an educator say those things.
From my perspective, the OP is either guilty of gross negligence or lying. In my book, being guilty of either calls for harsh consequences. Hopefully, the OP or a reader somewhere will take the lesson to not post a supposed fact without having some background in the area first. If so, then from my point of view, my being an asshole paid dividends and the world is a better place for it.
Also for what it's worth, I'm typically much more personable when it comes to "helping" others, it's just that such ignorance in the above is unpalatable to me.
* the -j/-z options are new in FreeBSE 7. They dont exist in other/older implementations
What is it with you retarded linux fanbois. It would take you http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=tar&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.0-RELEASE&format=html
Yeah, that was released over 4 years ago.
* a help options simply listing the commands w/o explanation is useless. you shouldnt have to consult the man pages to see a short description
That personal preference, not a fact. If you want to have pervasive -h availability, don't use FreeBSD. I don't see the upside, but knock yourself out.
* your "syscall bs" is nonsense. It's like "go read the source luke"...
duh...you do understand we're talking about fucking system calls right? Why would want them documented other than in a logical organized, centralized location.
- BSD tar lacks the jz switches. Seriously. I want them.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=tar&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+7.1-RELEASE+and+Ports&format=html
Do you see the -jz switches, cause I sure do. Maybe you could get a clue before you're put in a position of "teaching". Another sad mark reflecting the lack of rigor in our educational standards. Talk about the blind leading the blind.
Also on bsd utilities, -h(if it exists) assumes you have some basic knowledge of the command. Otherwise that is what man(1) is for.
In response to you syscall bs, you can reference this file: /usr/src/sys/kern/syscalls.master or this one for linux syscalls: /usr/src/sys/i386/linux/syscalls.master. Wow even easier than apropos returning jumbled garbage. Imagine that. I'm also going to share a really special trick, you can even use grep(or other utils) on those files to return specific info you're targeting.
Horatio, one of us here doesn't know what the fuck we're talking about and I'm betting it's not me.
I once built a case out of a cardboard box(and the handyman's secret weapon). True story, ISP I worked at was too cheap to actually purchase even a low end system(major irritation since a $6000 Mac was sitting across the hall I've hated them ever since). Now this was well after the time period you reference in your post, as I ended up with 4 -5 different HD which totaled about 1.5GB in available space. It was on this unit I constructed my first freebsd system running 2.2.8 w/ X and some faux Win 95 interface. The grey beard on-site was rather amazed it worked, since this setup used two power supplies and they were not operating in redundant fashion. I needed two to power all the HD, FD, CD-ROM components. Hobo worked quite well for a long time.
Anyways, that's a really long way of telling you don't let a little thing like inadequate case space stand in the way of getting it done.
Copyright infringement is not theft.
How does Google News gain an advantage it otherwise couldn't without google. The news aggregation is all internal to google news, and while I can't prove it I would imagine you could plug it into virtually any webcrawl generated index if even uses those results.
Aside from the already relevant comment, no that is not possible. Google search uses the index it creates.
My experience with memtest is you can trust the results if it says the memory is bad, however if the memory passed it could still be bad. Troubleshooting your scenario should involve replacing the DIMM's in questions with known good modules while running Windows.
There's two people I work with who are convinced global warming is some sort of liberal fraud. Should I list their names here too since they are as exactly relevant to this thread as Owsley Stanley?
At first I was wondering if you were merely being facetious, but in light of your last response it seems spun pegged you right away. In regards to spun modding you down, had he done so then posting to this thread would have discounted all those points, so this whole event really isn't saying much good about your so-called "critical-rationalism" now is it?
only for metadata, data IO is done asynchronously by default.
Why not?
If barriers exists that limit the exchange of ideas and customs, why would that not be considered a cultural barrier?
I think that's pure invention.
But you don't think the original quote is pure invention?...interesting. My entire basic point is she's creating hypothetical that don't have a history in specific relation to Google. Varney's choice of those words is subject to scrutiny in this case because there is no direct cause to bring it up. Extrapolating cause from this bring you back to an anti-trust suit as a perfectly logical endpoint.
Huh?
I'm not sure what was so confusing about that so here's some more reference for you:
http://code.google.com/apis/maps/terms.html Section 4.3 specifically. I'm sure there's more like that.
I actually quite disagree with her that Microsoft is a problem of the past, but on the other hand I do see their power as waning.
Yeah I think they're in decline, but I think we're in the eye of storm now. MS be as fierce going out as coming in and their demise will take much longer. They didn't get to where they because they had the best products.
It certainly does not imply that she will pursue anti-trust action against Google regardless of whether there are any allegations of discrimination or not. That makes no sense regardless of how you read her sentence.
I didn't phrase that first part well. I meant it seems she implied she would pursue action if any complaint was filed. I don't think it would be too much to ask to put in a credible qualifier and I rest my case with the widespread reaction of /. users. It's not limited to just us even if it's more pronounced here.
It's The Future(tm). Cloud computing has become the dominant paradigm, and due to its popularity Google Apps is the MS Office of its day. Over time, Google introduces subtle and undocumented changes to their formerly free and open API which break other apps, and/or begins utilizing features in their native Apps that aren't available through the api which prevents documents from being read in other environments.
Basically the same story as Windows/Office, only "on the internet".
I'd like to think that by the time net apps are popular enough for this to even be possible that people will have mostly wised up to the problems of lock-in. I'd also like to think that Google really is less evil than Microsoft and they'll decide that openness is ultimately better for them than trying to abuse their monopoly. Hell, maybe knowing the top anti-trust regulator is paying attention will be all it takes to ensure this doesn't happen.
I think for the most part we're on the same page here as that's basically all I could come with as well. However, given the list of points you'd like to see happen(of which we are also in agreement and I think likely will occur in general) as well as Google's history and MO, I fail to see why she would think a credible complaint is likely to arise. I'm not saying it's not possible, just not likely IMO.
The closest complaint I can spin up is a third party uses SDK/API which abuse cloud network or processing in violation of TOS. I fail to see why that would be credible unless TOS limits are set impracticability low. That why it seems like she's drumming up charges. That could easily changes if Google alters it's philosophy.
Unless you meant going back to finish the job on Microsoft. I think that'd be hard; they were tried and convicted. It would take new allegations. I'm not sure how much traction there'd be for that even in the Obama administration.
I meant both but mostly going after Microsoft again. I think there are enough violations in other areas(like those hidden API's you mentioned) to avoid any double jeopardy conflict. And yes, there would limited support for this effort.
"there will be companies that will begin to allege that Google is discriminating"
The vast majority is of Google's cloud computing is given away free(so people will use their products). To the best my knowledge, they have a fairly open sdk and tos. I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario like the text you quoted(the quote seems so imply it's inevitable so it's more fair to interpret it as a promise of action). Can you provide a hypothetical?
Seriously, what's the issue with having an anti-trust chief who is aware of and intends to keep an eye on potential future problems? If regulators had been keeping a closer eye on Microsoft, then maybe U.S. vs Microsoft would have happened early enough to actually make a difference.
I'd rather have one that finishes the job.
So when many families suffer catastrophic financial difficulties due legal fees and lack of income due to incarceration that's not a consideration? Poverty goes hand in hand with crime and violence and putting family member including young children behind the statistical 8-ball sure isn't helping the overall crime rate. Rehabilitation is a far better option in nearly every circumstance.
Works great for China, there's no corruption over there.
let's start with your math:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=87+%2F+12&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
Now if that sentence is handed out, the federal minimum is 85%
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=(87+%2F+12)++*+.85&btnG=Search
and now on to your deterrent statement. While there may be a few exceptions as with anything, most people would rather pay a few million than spend a year, three, or 8 incarcerated. A ten year maximum sentence vs a five year one isn't really going to stop anyone from proceeding with their crime.
Even still the PC industry is definitely MUCH bigger
Well if the poster had said that I wouldn't have made my comment right? If this article was about hardware manufacturers capitulating on DRM, then I would be in agreement. As it stands, this makes perfect sense from M$'s standpoint.
M$ has a huge vested interest in making sure media doesn't start work well in FOSS. The minute FOSS OS's using multimedia in a comprehensive, and easy(as in OOBE) format to streaming stuff like wmv's, netflix, etc, it becomes much more attractive to the average consumer. Placating media companies with integrated DRM is an easy way to insure new technologies on developed on M$ products. So it is not so much wag the dog as it is dog chasing tail in a metaphorical since.
Wow your math is about as good as your logic.
33.99
27.39
16.84
14.09
13.74
13.24
12.18
10.39
9.46
8.44
7.84
6.33
5.68
5.5
5.41
5.27
___________
195.79
And we are talking about M$ in this instance right? Last time I installed IBM software it didn't prevent from doing certain activities and HP doesn't produce a lot of desktop operating systems now does it?
Again, bullshit. The point I responded to was that M$ dwarfed anything in existence and is a modern day Wesayso corporation which is clearly a statement made up on the spot.