In that when the experimental network driver, that you use for your brand new laptop, encounters that obscure bug (that crashes the driver once for every 50MB of data transfered) you wont even notice unless you're running a realtime bandwidth monitoring program. The reincarnation server will transparently restart your network driver.
I would most definitely care. From the minix site:
"A special process, called the reincarnation server, periodically pings each device driver. If the driver dies or fails to respond correctly to pings, the reincarnation server automatically replaces it by a fresh copy. The detection and replacement of nonfunctioning drivers is automatic, without any user action required. This feature does not work for disk drivers at present, but in the next release the system will be able to recover even disk drivers, which will be shadowed in RAM. Driver recovery does not affect running processes."
Sure, if the actual disk is broken this will not help, but for all the cases where the driver rather than the hardware is at fault this would be a godsend.
That's exactly the point. You do not allow proprietary stuff into the kernel. The drivers live in userspace. As such they cannot crash your kernel.
Imagine your nvidia driver crashing, and all that happens is that the screen goes blank for a second as the reincarnation server restarts your nvidia driver. KDE never even knows what happens. All your programs are still running just fine. With a monolithic kernel you would almost certainly be swearing over your lost work as you reach for the reset button to restart your crashed/hung machine.
Ok, more unbacked assertions, accompanied by... more unbacked assertions of your opponent being wrong. Riveting argument there.
As for your statement about what this is all about: No no no no NO! The main issue is that it IS just an excuse. Terrorism has always been around, and will be around as long as there is gross injustice, most likely meaning forever. Citing terrorism as the reason for taking your freedom away at the same time as you claim they are attacking your freedom is asinine.
Bush: "They are attacking your freedom. But don't worry, we'll fight it by taking your freedom!" Do you honestly mean you cannot see what is wrong with that statement?
You are far more likely to die from traffic than terrorism.
Your leaders are using terrorism it as an excuse to take your privacy and freedom from you, and to invade other countries killing, at the very lowest of all estimates, several tens of thousands of innocents in the process.(But they're not terrorists right? They're the good guys right? Killing innocents is only bad if you're a terrorist right? It's not as if killing innocent babies is bad if it's the good guys doing it! Collateral damage, right?)
You should be able to see this since it's a strategy repeated throughout history.
As for your arguments along the lines of: "I'll stop arguing now because, I'm tired, I'm bored, I'm convinced you're wrong and hence don't need to argue the point. If you continue you're not playing by the rules of this discussion that I just made up."
I suggest you don't make controversial statements on slashdot unless you're willing to defend them.
No need to reread your post. I see the logical fallacy. I'm trying to make you see it.
In reality it goes like this(paraphrased): Terrorism is not in any way a big enough threat to motivate the detrimental changes to society made in its name.
You respond: I'm not afraid of the threat, I'm afraid of the detrimental changes to society.
laughingcoyote responds by explaining at length how you can see that the changes to society are not caused by terrorism, that this is just an excuse for grabbing more power.
You respond: Don't feel like debating this. My point stands on it's own.
Rereading your post wont change the fact that your assertions have no legs to stand on.
Yes. he was wrong in one of his assertions. And you told him so. Would you be surprised to hear that that is not the part of this debate that I was talking about you sidestepping? That in fact, the part that i was talking about is the part that you refuse to discuss? You know. The one that you "don't feel like debating" after throwing out your assertions. This part:
I'm not scared of dying from a terrorist attack per se, I'm afraid of the effect on civilization. Look at airline travel in the US: it used to be easy, because it was relatively trustworthy. Now it's way slower and a bigger PITA.
People are afraid to build tall buildings because they might be a target. We have bag searches at all major public events.
Government intrusions into privacy is just a symptom of a larger attack on civilization by the terrorists, and THAT'S what should concern people who are concerned about privacy. When these people are exterminated, there will no longer be a reason for these problems, and things can go back to the way it used to be when we didn't have to be paranoid and cautious.
And laughingcoyote's answer you didn't feel like debating:
So, GP was right-let's not worry too much about it, and all the "effects" you listed on civilization go away. They're results of our own fear and hysteria. Statistically, you've got less chance of dying in a terrorist attack then from a lightning strike OR a car accident-and yet, I bet if you need to, you're very willing to go out and drive your car during a thunderstorm. Me too. Why? Because I refuse to live in fear of every remote possibility.
As far as I can tell laughingcoyote demolished your assertions. Care to explain why not? Or don't you feel like presenting all your irrefutable facts?
Conveniently redefining your arguments, as to why you need not present any real arguments to motivate your assertions, as not being part of the debate. Brilliant. If you're in the business of splitting hairs and avoiding the real issue that is.
How about giving defending your original assertions a shot, instead spouting all this bull on why you need not? Because, as you apparently have missed, assertions prove nothing! They make no point to "stand on it's own".
That's an excellent explanation of what Goodwins law is all about. You also make a good case as to why any comment that compares the issue under discussion with something universally loathed should be treated as suspect. However, this all applies only when comparison is not relevant!
I'd call the comparison very relevant in this case. People need to be reminded what happens when you let your leaders run amok trampling your rights as they go. The outrage that is engendered is entirely appropriate when the comparison is relevant.
No, the translation is that you haven't raised any point worth debating, and it's pointless because I know I won't change your mind, even if I point out irrefutable facts.
Ah! The fabulous smell of sophistry in the air. Nothing quite like it.
I know i should just let this thread die the silent death it deserves based on it's content. But I just cannot help myself after running into this video on the very site you pointed me at.
I keep refuting your assertions, you keep trying to redefine the issue. The issue is your assertion that monopolies and cartels will automatically fail through the mechanisms of a completely unregulated capitalism. Modern history has numerous examples showing this to be false even for capitalistic systems with regulations designed to prevent monopolies. I and several others have pointed out a number of such examples to you without you being able to refute them. Actually you have supplied nothing but unbased assertions of your beliefs being true as support for your beliefs.
Do you have any actual arguments or facts supporting your assertions? How about presenting them in that case?
Microsoft is not a monopoly? Because of Linux? RIAA and MPAA are not cartels and oligopolies based on the evidence of: YouTube and EMusic?
Emusic is competing with RIAA the way that Bill the New Your taxi driver competes with American Airlines. The same goes for YouTube vs MPAA and Linux vs Microsoft. The Linux vs Microsoft situation may just change in the next few years, but there are no guarantees what so ever, and it comes after a decade of Microsoft enjoying and abusing an almost absolute monopoly.
I'm sorry, I missed that. Must have been by the RIIA released music trying to make it self heard over the MPAA soundtrack as I throw together my new operating system that I'll be launching tomorrow.
You didn't get my point did you? It goes like this: Two different thing having the same point or purpose does not mean they are the same thing. A gun is not mace though both are used for defence. A car is not a skateboard. etc.
Actually your argument is even more illogical, you are saying that the purpose of a thing is the thing. The purpose of ownership is control, so control equals ownership.
So is justice and order law? Is transport a bicycle?
Sorry, that fails on any number of levels, and your redefinition of regulation as socialism along with it.
Free markets don't tolerate fools or monopolies gladly. In answer to the monopolies part of that statement:
I fail to see what logic you base that assumption on. The only thing I can figure is that you ignore both cost of entry and the influence/power of the reigning monopolist. In the world I observe, Microsoft is currently fighting a semi organized coalition made up of just about everyone but them, and still they are loosing ground very slowly, if at all.
In my opinion the currently in progress regulation, consisting of demanding open standards and that Microsoft provides documentation sufficient for the competition to be able to interoperate with Microsoft software, is anything but disruptive or damaging to a free market. In fact, I consider such regulation to be absolutely necessary to the operation of a free market.
I didn't realise that I may redefine things that I feel I see the "point" of. How convenient. Hmm, let's see how that works: Promiscuity is bigamy since the point is more than one partner. A car is a bicycle since the point is transportation. Women are men since the point is being human.
Slashdot Mirror
"And that's different from modules... how?"
In that when the experimental network driver, that you use for your brand new laptop, encounters that obscure bug (that crashes the driver once for every 50MB of data transfered) you wont even notice unless you're running a realtime bandwidth monitoring program. The reincarnation server will transparently restart your network driver.
I would most definitely care. From the minix site:
"A special process, called the reincarnation server, periodically pings each device driver. If the driver dies or fails to respond correctly to pings, the reincarnation server automatically replaces it by a fresh copy. The detection and replacement of nonfunctioning drivers is automatic, without any user action required. This feature does not work for disk drivers at present, but in the next release the system will be able to recover even disk drivers, which will be shadowed in RAM. Driver recovery does not affect running processes."
Sure, if the actual disk is broken this will not help, but for all the cases where the driver rather than the hardware is at fault this would be a godsend.
That's exactly the point. You do not allow proprietary stuff into the kernel. The drivers live in userspace. As such they cannot crash your kernel.
Imagine your nvidia driver crashing, and all that happens is that the screen goes blank for a second as the reincarnation server restarts your nvidia driver. KDE never even knows what happens. All your programs are still running just fine. With a monolithic kernel you would almost certainly be swearing over your lost work as you reach for the reset button to restart your crashed/hung machine.
Ok, more unbacked assertions, accompanied by ... more unbacked assertions of your opponent being wrong. Riveting argument there.
As for your statement about what this is all about: No no no no NO! The main issue is that it IS just an excuse. Terrorism has always been around, and will be around as long as there is gross injustice, most likely meaning forever. Citing terrorism as the reason for taking your freedom away at the same time as you claim they are attacking your freedom is asinine.
Bush:
"They are attacking your freedom. But don't worry, we'll fight it by taking your freedom!"
Do you honestly mean you cannot see what is wrong with that statement?
You are far more likely to die from traffic than terrorism.
Your leaders are using terrorism it as an excuse to take your privacy and freedom from you, and to invade other countries killing, at the very lowest of all estimates, several tens of thousands of innocents in the process.(But they're not terrorists right? They're the good guys right? Killing innocents is only bad if you're a terrorist right? It's not as if killing innocent babies is bad if it's the good guys doing it! Collateral damage, right?)
You should be able to see this since it's a strategy repeated throughout history.
As for your arguments along the lines of: "I'll stop arguing now because, I'm tired, I'm bored, I'm convinced you're wrong and hence don't need to argue the point. If you continue you're not playing by the rules of this discussion that I just made up."
I suggest you don't make controversial statements on slashdot unless you're willing to defend them.
No need to reread your post. I see the logical fallacy. I'm trying to make you see it.
In reality it goes like this(paraphrased):
Terrorism is not in any way a big enough threat to motivate the detrimental changes to society made in its name.
You respond: I'm not afraid of the threat, I'm afraid of the detrimental changes to society.
laughingcoyote responds by explaining at length how you can see that the changes to society are not caused by terrorism, that this is just an excuse for grabbing more power.
You respond: Don't feel like debating this. My point stands on it's own.
Rereading your post wont change the fact that your assertions have no legs to stand on.
And laughingcoyote's answer you didn't feel like debating:
As far as I can tell laughingcoyote demolished your assertions. Care to explain why not? Or don't you feel like presenting all your irrefutable facts?
Conveniently redefining your arguments, as to why you need not present any real arguments to motivate your assertions, as not being part of the debate. Brilliant. If you're in the business of splitting hairs and avoiding the real issue that is.
How about giving defending your original assertions a shot, instead spouting all this bull on why you need not? Because, as you apparently have missed, assertions prove nothing! They make no point to "stand on it's own".
That's an excellent explanation of what Goodwins law is all about. You also make a good case as to why any comment that compares the issue under discussion with something universally loathed should be treated as suspect. However, this all applies only when comparison is not relevant!
I'd call the comparison very relevant in this case. People need to be reminded what happens when you let your leaders run amok trampling your rights as they go. The outrage that is engendered is entirely appropriate when the comparison is relevant.
You can't vote for any other party! The wrong lizard might get in!
Ah! The fabulous smell of sophistry in the air. Nothing quite like it.
I know i should just let this thread die the silent death it deserves based on it's content. But I just cannot help myself after running into this video on the very site you pointed me at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QDbeGDRU_0
Red herring.
I keep refuting your assertions, you keep trying to redefine the issue.
The issue is your assertion that monopolies and cartels will automatically fail through the mechanisms of a completely unregulated capitalism. Modern history has numerous examples showing this to be false even for capitalistic systems with regulations designed to prevent monopolies. I and several others have pointed out a number of such examples to you without you being able to refute them. Actually you have supplied nothing but unbased assertions of your beliefs being true as support for your beliefs.
Do you have any actual arguments or facts supporting your assertions? How about presenting them in that case?
Microsoft is not a monopoly? Because of Linux?
RIAA and MPAA are not cartels and oligopolies based on the evidence of: YouTube and EMusic?
Emusic is competing with RIAA the way that Bill the New Your taxi driver competes with American Airlines. The same goes for YouTube vs MPAA and Linux vs Microsoft. The Linux vs Microsoft situation may just change in the next few years, but there are no guarantees what so ever, and it comes after a decade of Microsoft enjoying and abusing an almost absolute monopoly.
I'm sorry, I missed that.
Must have been by the RIIA released music trying to make it self heard over the MPAA soundtrack as I throw together my new operating system that I'll be launching tomorrow.
You didn't get my point did you?
It goes like this: Two different thing having the same point or purpose does not mean they are the same thing.
A gun is not mace though both are used for defence.
A car is not a skateboard. etc.
Actually your argument is even more illogical, you are saying that the purpose of a thing is the thing.
The purpose of ownership is control, so control equals ownership.
So is justice and order law?
Is transport a bicycle?
Sorry, that fails on any number of levels, and your redefinition of regulation as socialism along with it.
Free markets don't tolerate fools or monopolies gladly.
In answer to the monopolies part of that statement:
I fail to see what logic you base that assumption on. The only thing I can figure is that you ignore both cost of entry and the influence/power of the reigning monopolist. In the world I observe, Microsoft is currently fighting a semi organized coalition made up of just about everyone but them, and still they are loosing ground very slowly, if at all.
In my opinion the currently in progress regulation, consisting of demanding open standards and that Microsoft provides documentation sufficient for the competition to be able to interoperate with Microsoft software, is anything but disruptive or damaging to a free market. In fact, I consider such regulation to be absolutely necessary to the operation of a free market.
I didn't realise that I may redefine things that I feel I see the "point" of. How convenient.
Hmm, let's see how that works:
Promiscuity is bigamy since the point is more than one partner.
A car is a bicycle since the point is transportation.
Women are men since the point is being human.
Nah, I don't figure that makes much sense.
Ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.microsoft.com/
No, I'm not kidding. MS illustrates the point beautifully. Think about it.
And this is different from Anarchy in what way?