Imagine if anyone could create a browser and call it Firefox. Mozilla Firefox is going to get stomped down by "forks" that introduce all sorts of spyware in the source code.
If they were going to do that, I can't imagine trademark law would stop them.
Absolutely, a high end thinkpad may be "for business types" but it still smokes pretty much anything else on the market. You'll just have to live without it being covered in blue LEDs or whatever shit they're doing to "cool" laptops these days.
The point (your point really, you brought up the quote in the first place...) is that Hitler only got away with what he did because nobody stopped him. The quote does not suggest who could have stopped him, besides "good men".
Now, realistically the logical answer is that the German people should have rejected Hitler's fanaticism and racism instead of going along with it. In my humble opinion they were among the first "good men" who did nothing. First and foremost citizens of a country should be concerned with the actions of their own government. Any answer more specific than that is just delving into tactics and really isn't relevant at all to the discussion at hand.
I'll deny it. The best way to save lives would have been for good men to not let it even take root and begin.
...in their position.
Ah, I see. Now we are setting up a situation where the good men are only capable of acting after a certain point in time? That's pretty damn unfair and misses the entire point of the quotation. Sure good men did help out once the shit got thick however (following the logic of the quotation), the shit only got thick because good men initially did nothing.
Personally I like to think people should at least have the opportunity to try to fight for their lives. Maybe I'm wrong though, perhaps they should have all voluntarily turned themselves in. Hell, they probably should have just thrown themselves out of windows and off bridges, it was inevitable anyways right?
"The trick is simple and effective, it consists of using a utility to dump the nvram contents, edit a value at a certain offset from 0 to 1 and update the nvram"
The obvious solution is to not render in software then. If software rendering is too slow then look into hardware rendering (which would be absurd overkill for a terminal emulator...). I suppose you could kind of consider that somewhat "multicore" in a way however I maintain that making xterm multicore would fail any reasonable cost/benefit analysis.
(as an aside, as an ncurses geared roguelike developer I must say gnome-terminal is hardly up to stuff compared to xterm, why oh why can't gnome-terminal and konsole not render the Unicode Full Block character correctly? Also konsole's default 256 color palette is completely off...[/random_rant])
Don't be absurd, throwing more cores at trivial programs like xterm which are not, and never have been processor intensive is not going to solve anything. CPU is not a bottleneck for xterm unless maybe you're using a M68k or something. I could easily throw a few dozen instances of xterm onto a single processor without the slightest of performance hits, it's bottleneck is I/O.
Real simple. Some applications just have absolutely no business being multicore capable.
Take xterm for example, what possible benefits could be reaped? The only applications that really need to be multicore capable are the big bulky ones (office suites, games, web browsers, other random GUI stuff), the vast majority work perfectly well on one.
Honestly though it kind of bugs me that webbrowsers suddenly need to use multiple cores when I distinctly remember using Firefox years ago on my 244MHz PII just fine. I've always favored minimalism though...
What about that rubbish where the network speed would significantly drop if you were playing an mp3 file? Even if they fixed that particular issue it doesn't exactly breed confidence.
I'm personally wondering what would prevent this wall from just catalyzing the formation of a massive sand dune, which would eventually rise above the wall, effectively rendering the wall useless. Unlike the Ocean, once sand rises up against the wall it isn't going to flow back out later.
Who decides what "p2p apps" to ban and which to approve? Furthermore, what criteria do they judge them on?
There is increasingly a separation between the actual applications (the clients), and the protocol itself, case in point: there are dozens of bittorrent clients. Do only sleazy malware clients get banned, or do entire protocols? What exactly makes a protocol "bad"? Why should anyone be in the business of telling me what sort of software I can write and run myself?
When the media sensationalizes computer viruses and worms they don't hype the preventative measures you can take. Instead they tell you that mad haxx0r computer wizards from the internet are going to take over your computer, turn it into a bomb, and kill numerous small children with it, and that there is nothing you can possibly do to prevent this other than remove your computer's CPU or destroy it's brain.
You'll get no useful hype out of the media when it comes to technology issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Where are my mod points when I need them, that's pretty damned interesting.
Imagine if anyone could create a browser and call it Firefox. Mozilla Firefox is going to get stomped down by "forks" that introduce all sorts of spyware in the source code.
If they were going to do that, I can't imagine trademark law would stop them.
Absolutely, a high end thinkpad may be "for business types" but it still smokes pretty much anything else on the market. You'll just have to live without it being covered in blue LEDs or whatever shit they're doing to "cool" laptops these days.
The point (your point really, you brought up the quote in the first place...) is that Hitler only got away with what he did because nobody stopped him. The quote does not suggest who could have stopped him, besides "good men".
Now, realistically the logical answer is that the German people should have rejected Hitler's fanaticism and racism instead of going along with it. In my humble opinion they were among the first "good men" who did nothing. First and foremost citizens of a country should be concerned with the actions of their own government. Any answer more specific than that is just delving into tactics and really isn't relevant at all to the discussion at hand.
but it's undeniably the best way to save lives...
I'll deny it. The best way to save lives would have been for good men to not let it even take root and begin.
Ah, I see. Now we are setting up a situation where the good men are only capable of acting after a certain point in time? That's pretty damn unfair and misses the entire point of the quotation. Sure good men did help out once the shit got thick however (following the logic of the quotation), the shit only got thick because good men initially did nothing.
The "good men" in that quote isn't just talking about other countries though, it applies on the individual level too.
Personally I like to think people should at least have the opportunity to try to fight for their lives. Maybe I'm wrong though, perhaps they should have all voluntarily turned themselves in. Hell, they probably should have just thrown themselves out of windows and off bridges, it was inevitable anyways right?
"The trick is simple and effective, it consists of using a utility to dump the nvram contents, edit a value at a certain offset from 0 to 1 and update the nvram"
That word, I don't think you know what it means.
The obvious solution is to not render in software then. If software rendering is too slow then look into hardware rendering (which would be absurd overkill for a terminal emulator...). I suppose you could kind of consider that somewhat "multicore" in a way however I maintain that making xterm multicore would fail any reasonable cost/benefit analysis.
(as an aside, as an ncurses geared roguelike developer I must say gnome-terminal is hardly up to stuff compared to xterm, why oh why can't gnome-terminal and konsole not render the Unicode Full Block character correctly? Also konsole's default 256 color palette is completely off...[/random_rant])
There is a reason for the BAR exam.
Yeah, we can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry running around with Browning Automatic Rifles!
Well IANAL but I'm willing to bet a real one would disagree with you. ;)
Don't be absurd, throwing more cores at trivial programs like xterm which are not, and never have been processor intensive is not going to solve anything. CPU is not a bottleneck for xterm unless maybe you're using a M68k or something. I could easily throw a few dozen instances of xterm onto a single processor without the slightest of performance hits, it's bottleneck is I/O.
Copy/Paste.
Real simple. Some applications just have absolutely no business being multicore capable.
Take xterm for example, what possible benefits could be reaped? The only applications that really need to be multicore capable are the big bulky ones (office suites, games, web browsers, other random GUI stuff), the vast majority work perfectly well on one.
Honestly though it kind of bugs me that webbrowsers suddenly need to use multiple cores when I distinctly remember using Firefox years ago on my 244MHz PII just fine. I've always favored minimalism though...
I would hardly call that toy a proper CLI.
Why can't I just use 'touch' on every file on my harddrive, giving them all random modification times from between a few years ago and the present?
If I were a greater man and wasn't in a rush I'm sure I could make a little one-liner to do exactly that.
I hadn't thought about it that way. I guess if it can be pulled off from an engineering standpoint it'd be pretty badass.
What about that rubbish where the network speed would significantly drop if you were playing an mp3 file? Even if they fixed that particular issue it doesn't exactly breed confidence.
Except in this bad analogy world, all the good books have copies everywhere and only the bad books get burned.
I'm personally wondering what would prevent this wall from just catalyzing the formation of a massive sand dune, which would eventually rise above the wall, effectively rendering the wall useless. Unlike the Ocean, once sand rises up against the wall it isn't going to flow back out later.
Nature is not "wise", and it is wrong to personify it or otherwise assume otherwise. All nature does is follow the path of least resistance.
As a Debian User, you are the downstream. "Upstream" is where it comes from, "downstream" is where it goes.
Who decides what "p2p apps" to ban and which to approve? Furthermore, what criteria do they judge them on?
There is increasingly a separation between the actual applications (the clients), and the protocol itself, case in point: there are dozens of bittorrent clients. Do only sleazy malware clients get banned, or do entire protocols? What exactly makes a protocol "bad"? Why should anyone be in the business of telling me what sort of software I can write and run myself?
Then you are far more un-American than the tools at Fox, which is quite an impressive feat.
"I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."
When the media sensationalizes computer viruses and worms they don't hype the preventative measures you can take. Instead they tell you that mad haxx0r computer wizards from the internet are going to take over your computer, turn it into a bomb, and kill numerous small children with it, and that there is nothing you can possibly do to prevent this other than remove your computer's CPU or destroy it's brain.
You'll get no useful hype out of the media when it comes to technology issues.