While I might agree with you normally, I think your crack at the founders' intelligence is slightly off. They made policy with the assumption that good people would be available to enforce and carry on the simple traditions and values of the constitution. Thus a two party system ought to be fine, so long as people chose it would be up to the masses to determine who best represented American values. In general, this all worked just fine until professional politicians took over and their interests were bought. If you work for money, you change your mind for money. Where are all the patriots? Not doing politics, for the most part. Why be one of the most despised people on the face of the planet for peanuts? If we had better people and attracted more talented leaders, we'd be in a much better position as a whole. How to do that is rather hard, but definitely a topic for another day. Cheers.
I've been working with fuel cells for a little bit now and I must say that while the efficiency arguments are nice and all, that's not where R&D is stuck right now. Though I mostly work with PEM fuel cells, which suffer from CO poisoning (CO molecules inhibit H2 molecules by taking their place on the membrane), SOFCs have their caveats as well. The main show stopper for the SOFCs has been thermal cycling and sulfur content in fuels. The sulfur issue has been fairly well addressed with simple fuel filters. Thermal cycling of the SOFC essentially kills the fuel cell a little every time it's started and stopped. The start cycle brings it from ambient, ~30C, all the way up to ~1000C, and back down again for shutdown. Needless to say, that's a lot of thermal stress on a system. The expansion and contraction due to uneven heating/cooling tend to destroy the SOFC after 10s of cycles.
So, I am very interested in how they addressed this thermal cycling issue. Did they find some novel way to distribute heat evenly so the expansion/contraction was uniform? Or did they find some new novel manufacturing process for the solid oxide that is a lot more robust to thermal cycles?
With having to reboot more than once a month to keep current and "secure", I think boot time matters. Unless the OS developers start getting back into run-time patching (isn't that what a hotfix is really supposed to be?), it doesn't seem like we can just write off boot times. Think of it like Steve was quoted saying in the above comment: say you, as a regular Joe (minus MS and Apple server/admin tools) administrate a computer lab with 30 units. You upgrade each computer on the bi-weekly basis that updates are churned out; a difference in boot time from 5 seconds to 60 seconds is the difference between having the computers ready in a few minutes vs half an hour. With the current mentality of the popular commercial OS's to gratuitously force reboots for the hell of it after every update imaginable, I like the idea of getting back up quickly. I hate seeing the Apple update pop up and just know I'll have to reboot and interrupt whatever my process flow was at the time.
So I tend to push it off and forget about it. Rebooting is not terribly productive and definitely not a very optimized processes these days. Some times I wish I could gut more out of the OS X system to improve UI and do more general performance tweaks like in the old days of Mac OS. Anyone remember running OS 7/8/9 off a RAM disk? So fast... =)
Heh... "Think of the children!!!" Shelter and protect them from everything so that when they leave the nest they are vulnerable as can be. I get it. Though unless their co-workers know this person's/. account I'm still not so sure why they went AC. I'd like to read his/her other posts.
After leaving the store, they may not allow anyone to deactivate the protection, lest you want to give thieves access to unlocking a DVD for the price of one receipt. However, I don't think this will be an issue at all because it seems to have a visual indicator in the process, an area of the CD going from opaque to transparent, which someone like a cashier might check to be sure the process worked. Thus making the above policy of "no enabling once the product has left the store" a reasonable one.
Nah, they won't mod up posts for endorsing piracy unless they want to get meta moderated into never-getting-mod-points-again hell. I think most of those who "support" it are smart enough to keep their mouthes shut in open forums, lest they make a nice target for themselves. =)
You're right, he has voted rather leftishly but I think that may have something to do with the current administrations "rightish" persuasion and general tendency to do things The Wrong Way(tm GWB).
And how comfortable would you feel having someone else, with whom you are not affiliated in any way, run a MySpace page that presumes to be you? If that happened to me you had best understand that I would consider it nothing less than identity theft and a gross invasion of privacy. And I have no doubts that my good friend Tom would help me resolve the situation.
Is the Obama MySpace incident a reason to not vote for him? Absolutely not. Is it something that could have been done better? Yes, without question. It is nowhere near the order of magnitude of say, GW's business track record, which IS relevant voting information IMHO. Speaking of relevant information for voting, this is it: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Speculation.htm
Ever used unemployment checks? If you're so unmarketable that you can't get a job in that kind of time frame, you're kind of in a bad position anyway. Stay diverse and marketable or die. It's the way of the market.
In short, I think you're getting dangerously close to creating a straw man when you attempt to pigeonhole Libertarians so narrowly; [...] and their views are not nearly as simplistic as you seem to think they are. I think this statement can be applied to any party, really. There's a wide variation of stance and platform within each party, so all generalizations become somewhat of a straw man argument. That being said, political parties are merely a remnant of the old style representative democracy, where there are too many citizens for everyone to voice an opinion so we join groups that represent most of our view and go to bat for us.
By todays standards it is completely feasible to have issue-based, non-partisan political processes. I say do away with parties, talking about parties, rating parties, comparing parties because it's just a big waste of time. Issues such as government regulation and when it is and is not appropriate are what we ought to talk about, not how we feel about the stereotypical Libertarian, anarchist, Republican, or Democratic views since no one person fits EXACTLY that stereotype. Nor do the parties even follow their own platforms once in power, thus we have to find out what in general the individual politician is passionate about, how he approaches various problems given certain information, and even what he thinks the government's role is as a regulator. That's what we ought to talk about in open, honest debate. Not the usual "I was born and raised Demykrat/Rebupican/Liberarian/etc, that's how I vote" mentality that justifies this single-minded behavior with flawed logic and polarizing group-think.
Hahahaha! Wow... I wasn't expecting that. You may have been a bit too general, hence my possibly incorrect interpretation.
In any case, this is the meat of your post:
The reality is the whole Quinn story looks quite different if you are not approaching it from your quite obvious "free software is teh bestest and M$ Windoze sux" POV. It just doesn't jive in so many ways it's not even funny. It just doesn't jive in so many ways it's not even funny. So, being fair, you never directly say anything, let alone that Peter Quinn got what he deserved. However, you did imply that our good friend twitter was incorrect in his interpretation of the situation, wherein he describes Peter Quinn as, generally speaking, getting screwed by The Man--who, in this case, happens to be M$. And because you imply that twitter is wrong without actually saying how he's wrong, or why he's wrong, or even what the correct relation of events is I am left wondering what you're trying to say. Hence my equally general and vague question for you to "back up your claim with some evidence", whatever that may be. The rest of the statement, "and tell us why Peter Quinn got what he deserved" is my foot in my mouth. Allow me to remove it so that you may proceed to illuminate the rest of/. with the real story. And no, I'm not being sarcastic... though I am a bit bitter about the foot. I don't think I'll ever quite get used to the taste.
Cheers.
SOP is no excuse for any BUSINESS to substitute content creation or services with non-competitive practices. Get better at your BUSINESS, not at excluding others from competing. BUSINESS and CAREER POLITICIANS together form the problem. There is no one or the other. You must have a M$ in order to exploit some CP. Likewise, a CP is likely to make the right decisions with no M$ to "persuade" him.
It seems to be a better way of making a point than yours. Why don't you back up your claim with some evidence and tell us why Peter Quinn got what he deserved? I'll admit I'm not completely up on the story, so if you have something serious to contribute so that I and others may become more informed, please do so. With links. Please.
You have completely failed to convince me that the "moral high ground" of FSF does not make them more likely to fairly, honestly, and straightforwardly represent my and the public's interests better than the other group.
So he used some nice words to contrast volunteer positions versus paid positions, big deal. The essence of his argument boils down to this: We do what we do for the love or for the money. It turns out that people will lie for money. How many will lie for love?
That may not make him or anyone in FSF a "saintly mart[y]r" (who apparently is unquestionable?), but it does give their "agenda" a better chance of being for the people and not just for the wallets of some executive management teams.
Using wavelets to encode the data you can create a multi-resolutional streaming format. Meaning, you set the level of detail, and it strips off the unused data in real tim
I like this poster's questions, even though it's posed as a series of related questions and not the single monolithic question. Editors of the questions sent out, please incorporate the parent's content. Thanks.
Define legitimate reference, please. I think we might be having a circular vocabulary issue.
In the end it all boils down to peer review and eventually getting some critical mass of people to understand your arguments. Whether the critical mass are "experts" or not doesn't matter. So long as the idea survives a healthy dose of skepticism, it enters the domain of social knowledge.
That is how knowledge works. Call it democracy if you will, but an idea that exists without the ability to test it, prove it, or communicate it may be worth-while to the individual that conceived it, but it's completely useless to the rest of the world without supporting merit.
In this light we can see Wikipedia as a democracy of knowledge. Thus, its success will occur as it raises the lowest common denominators of its viewers above some threshold of ignorance. This will probably take a while.
Slashdot Mirror
While I might agree with you normally, I think your crack at the founders' intelligence is slightly off. They made policy with the assumption that good people would be available to enforce and carry on the simple traditions and values of the constitution. Thus a two party system ought to be fine, so long as people chose it would be up to the masses to determine who best represented American values. In general, this all worked just fine until professional politicians took over and their interests were bought. If you work for money, you change your mind for money. Where are all the patriots? Not doing politics, for the most part. Why be one of the most despised people on the face of the planet for peanuts? If we had better people and attracted more talented leaders, we'd be in a much better position as a whole. How to do that is rather hard, but definitely a topic for another day. Cheers.
Nah... I do like the sounds of user-defined content filters with regular expressions syntax.
Now for some pseudo example.
filter expresion: ^[Mm][Ee][Hh]
modifier: -5
I've been working with fuel cells for a little bit now and I must say that while the efficiency arguments are nice and all, that's not where R&D is stuck right now. Though I mostly work with PEM fuel cells, which suffer from CO poisoning (CO molecules inhibit H2 molecules by taking their place on the membrane), SOFCs have their caveats as well. The main show stopper for the SOFCs has been thermal cycling and sulfur content in fuels. The sulfur issue has been fairly well addressed with simple fuel filters. Thermal cycling of the SOFC essentially kills the fuel cell a little every time it's started and stopped. The start cycle brings it from ambient, ~30C, all the way up to ~1000C, and back down again for shutdown. Needless to say, that's a lot of thermal stress on a system. The expansion and contraction due to uneven heating/cooling tend to destroy the SOFC after 10s of cycles.
So, I am very interested in how they addressed this thermal cycling issue. Did they find some novel way to distribute heat evenly so the expansion/contraction was uniform? Or did they find some new novel manufacturing process for the solid oxide that is a lot more robust to thermal cycles?
With having to reboot more than once a month to keep current and "secure", I think boot time matters. Unless the OS developers start getting back into run-time patching (isn't that what a hotfix is really supposed to be?), it doesn't seem like we can just write off boot times. Think of it like Steve was quoted saying in the above comment: say you, as a regular Joe (minus MS and Apple server/admin tools) administrate a computer lab with 30 units. You upgrade each computer on the bi-weekly basis that updates are churned out; a difference in boot time from 5 seconds to 60 seconds is the difference between having the computers ready in a few minutes vs half an hour. With the current mentality of the popular commercial OS's to gratuitously force reboots for the hell of it after every update imaginable, I like the idea of getting back up quickly. I hate seeing the Apple update pop up and just know I'll have to reboot and interrupt whatever my process flow was at the time.
So I tend to push it off and forget about it. Rebooting is not terribly productive and definitely not a very optimized processes these days. Some times I wish I could gut more out of the OS X system to improve UI and do more general performance tweaks like in the old days of Mac OS. Anyone remember running OS 7/8/9 off a RAM disk? So fast... =)
Right on.
Zing!
+1 Informative and funny, where are my mod points?
Heh... "Think of the children!!!" Shelter and protect them from everything so that when they leave the nest they are vulnerable as can be. I get it. Though unless their co-workers know this person's /. account I'm still not so sure why they went AC. I'd like to read his/her other posts.
Why were you AC? I don't read AC unless it's modded up. And when I get to mod up, I don't read AC posts.
After leaving the store, they may not allow anyone to deactivate the protection, lest you want to give thieves access to unlocking a DVD for the price of one receipt. However, I don't think this will be an issue at all because it seems to have a visual indicator in the process, an area of the CD going from opaque to transparent, which someone like a cashier might check to be sure the process worked. Thus making the above policy of "no enabling once the product has left the store" a reasonable one.
Nah, they won't mod up posts for endorsing piracy unless they want to get meta moderated into never-getting-mod-points-again hell. I think most of those who "support" it are smart enough to keep their mouthes shut in open forums, lest they make a nice target for themselves. =)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
You're right, he has voted rather leftishly but I think that may have something to do with the current administrations "rightish" persuasion and general tendency to do things The Wrong Way(tm GWB).
And how comfortable would you feel having someone else, with whom you are not affiliated in any way, run a MySpace page that presumes to be you? If that happened to me you had best understand that I would consider it nothing less than identity theft and a gross invasion of privacy. And I have no doubts that my good friend Tom would help me resolve the situation.
Is the Obama MySpace incident a reason to not vote for him? Absolutely not. Is it something that could have been done better? Yes, without question. It is nowhere near the order of magnitude of say, GW's business track record, which IS relevant voting information IMHO. Speaking of relevant information for voting, this is it:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Speculation.htm
Ever used unemployment checks? If you're so unmarketable that you can't get a job in that kind of time frame, you're kind of in a bad position anyway. Stay diverse and marketable or die. It's the way of the market.
Cheers
By todays standards it is completely feasible to have issue-based, non-partisan political processes. I say do away with parties, talking about parties, rating parties, comparing parties because it's just a big waste of time. Issues such as government regulation and when it is and is not appropriate are what we ought to talk about, not how we feel about the stereotypical Libertarian, anarchist, Republican, or Democratic views since no one person fits EXACTLY that stereotype. Nor do the parties even follow their own platforms once in power, thus we have to find out what in general the individual politician is passionate about, how he approaches various problems given certain information, and even what he thinks the government's role is as a regulator. That's what we ought to talk about in open, honest debate. Not the usual "I was born and raised Demykrat/Rebupican/Liberarian/etc, that's how I vote" mentality that justifies this single-minded behavior with flawed logic and polarizing group-think.
In any case, this is the meat of your post: The reality is the whole Quinn story looks quite different if you are not approaching it from your quite obvious "free software is teh bestest and M$ Windoze sux" POV. It just doesn't jive in so many ways it's not even funny. It just doesn't jive in so many ways it's not even funny. So, being fair, you never directly say anything, let alone that Peter Quinn got what he deserved. However, you did imply that our good friend twitter was incorrect in his interpretation of the situation, wherein he describes Peter Quinn as, generally speaking, getting screwed by The Man--who, in this case, happens to be M$. And because you imply that twitter is wrong without actually saying how he's wrong, or why he's wrong, or even what the correct relation of events is I am left wondering what you're trying to say. Hence my equally general and vague question for you to "back up your claim with some evidence", whatever that may be. The rest of the statement, "and tell us why Peter Quinn got what he deserved" is my foot in my mouth. Allow me to remove it so that you may proceed to illuminate the rest of
SOP is no excuse for any BUSINESS to substitute content creation or services with non-competitive practices. Get better at your BUSINESS, not at excluding others from competing. BUSINESS and CAREER POLITICIANS together form the problem. There is no one or the other. You must have a M$ in order to exploit some CP. Likewise, a CP is likely to make the right decisions with no M$ to "persuade" him.
Cheers
It seems to be a better way of making a point than yours. Why don't you back up your claim with some evidence and tell us why Peter Quinn got what he deserved? I'll admit I'm not completely up on the story, so if you have something serious to contribute so that I and others may become more informed, please do so. With links. Please.
You have completely failed to convince me that the "moral high ground" of FSF does not make them more likely to fairly, honestly, and straightforwardly represent my and the public's interests better than the other group.
So he used some nice words to contrast volunteer positions versus paid positions, big deal. The essence of his argument boils down to this: We do what we do for the love or for the money. It turns out that people will lie for money. How many will lie for love?
That may not make him or anyone in FSF a "saintly mart[y]r" (who apparently is unquestionable?), but it does give their "agenda" a better chance of being for the people and not just for the wallets of some executive management teams.
There is a technical solution to this problem.
Using wavelets to encode the data you can create a multi-resolutional streaming format. Meaning, you set the level of detail, and it strips off the unused data in real tim
I like this poster's questions, even though it's posed as a series of related questions and not the single monolithic question. Editors of the questions sent out, please incorporate the parent's content. Thanks.
HDMI to DVI cables->n umber=181-741
2m cable: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Part
For ~$24, or less in quantity. I have the 2m cable and it works well. Though you may need a gender changer on the DVI side it's not a big deal.
Brain damage is cumulative. Boxing as a profession is not advisable.
I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, but if you'd be so kind as to provide some links to back that up?
Define legitimate reference, please. I think we might be having a circular vocabulary issue.
In the end it all boils down to peer review and eventually getting some critical mass of people to understand your arguments. Whether the critical mass are "experts" or not doesn't matter. So long as the idea survives a healthy dose of skepticism, it enters the domain of social knowledge.
That is how knowledge works. Call it democracy if you will, but an idea that exists without the ability to test it, prove it, or communicate it may be worth-while to the individual that conceived it, but it's completely useless to the rest of the world without supporting merit.
In this light we can see Wikipedia as a democracy of knowledge. Thus, its success will occur as it raises the lowest common denominators of its viewers above some threshold of ignorance. This will probably take a while.