This sounds like reasonable advice. On Slashdot? Hmm... There must be something wrong. I must be missing something? I've not made it to the bottom of the thread so I'm assuming that there's a nasty joke in there, or a horrific surprise.
I'm partial to leaving the older interface as an option. If the new project is done properly, with time, the old interface can (probably) just be an overlay using new APIs. This will allow users to 'skin' the app to their choosing. Choice? No... I'm definitely missing something.
That sounds like my old work. It was re-written by actual professionals. I even had a nested menu item that said, "I'm too drunk." I had plans for that button. Plans, I tell you! Also, I was drunk. I kind of miss those days, stumbling out of the office for a couple of hours sleep and then returning with barely a shower and a breakfast drink. The office got quiet at 5:00 PM and at 4:00 AM you're realizing that you've not gone home for a couple of days but it has been fun and involving.
You've never actually driven a 100 year old car, have you? Suffice to say, you probably can't drive one. Depending on the make, the throttle may not even be where you're expecting it and it almost certainly doesn't start in the manner you're expecting. Shifting is not going to be even remotely like you're expecting and there may not even be a clutch. Yeah, you're going to break the hell out of a 100 year old car.
Yes, but for a brief moment, they felt important and that their opinion mattered. Of course, one might also ask, why else post if not for those reasons? We're not altruists, no matter how much we'd like to pretend we are.
It would appear that 17 out of some 250ish cases have been charged because of surveillance. I was kind of hoping for zero but it is what it is. Now, that's the NSA and not the CIA - I don't know about the CIA. I'd imagine similar results are possible.
Personally, as cold as this sounds, I'd rather they have been able to carry out their attacks then suffer the real attacks on my liberties. Yes, I'm aware that good people might die as a result. I accept that it may be myself or someone I care about. Yes, I'd rather keep my rights than live in fear. I know, I'm a cold bastard. *sighs* Yes, I'm selfish for wanting to keep my rights. I accept that.
GPL was written in 1989 if I recall correctly. I think it's a direct descendant of prior licenses - namely emacs among others (gcc maybe?). My memory is a bit fuzzy and that was quite some time ago. I believe 3.1 was early 1990s.
I rebooted just prior to leaving on my current adventure and I rebooted sometime since, well - 72 days ago, for e kernel update. I can, reasonably, expect to go twice that long or even ten times that long - if I want. I've a server that I think has been about three years now? I can't do that, as easily, with Windows. I like Windows well enough but I prefer to use the correct tool for the job I'm trying to do and that, in this case, means Linux.
Oddly, I've nary a problem with my BMWs over the years - nothing major, at any rate. On the other hand, I keep them properly maintained. Yes, yes it is expensive but it seems to be worth it.
I imagine that might have been me. 'Tis a long story but that's what blurted out of me while in a museum, while tripping, and surrounded by a tour group. The lady friend that was with me turned and said, "My brain has been removed by a skyhook." We were good until she turned around and saw a giant lobster hanging on the wall and started going "meep meep meep!" (Which, at the time, indicated great excitement.) We were not technically asked to leave, even then, but we knew we'd overstayed our welcome so we meandered off on our own.
It was, however, an original thought and a gift to you. You can have it, do with it what you will, or even discard it. I'd suggest not keeping it, it's contagious.
Buddhists are not all peace-loving types who will never harm another under no circumstances. We're not a homogeneous group with the same universal beliefs. I am a Buddhist. I often carry a firearm. (I'd hate to use it but I will. It's frequently unloaded, actually. It's trivially easy to load.) We're not all vegetarians who will run out and set ourselves on fire if we're being oppressed. It generally takes a bit to get us pissed off (that's pretty universal, we're a pragmatic lot) but we can and will retaliate. See, for example, the various martial arts forms that have come from monasteries. Those arts were not perfected to amuse tourists and make bad B movies.
I don't feel like typing it all out again. You may be interested in it. Feel free to tear it apart, poke at it, ponder it, whatever. It's just something that's been stuck in my head for 30 years or so - it's likely wrong but it does make for some interesting thoughts.
My current working mental theory is, if you want to hear it, that information is similar to matter. It may not be tangible but it exists. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Matter can be altered in many ways.
Information is similar to matter, in my current thinking, in that it has "always" been here. It has neither been created nor destroyed. It has simply been put together in new and interesting ways. It has been learned about, it has been combined, it has faded from our records but is not gone.
I'd go so far as to humbly submit that information has mass and we're unable to measure it. Why do I say that it has mass? The evidence suggests that it does. Note how we have attained information at an ever-increasing pace? As the mass increases so does its power of attraction. I'd suspect there's some time relativity in there too - does not the world seem to go faster? Why is it that we call those with less intelligence than their peers "slow?"
What is this mass? I do not know. How to measure it? I do not know. Is there a way to prove this, thus making it science? I do not know. I have, however, been pondering this for years - since a fairly decent mescaline hallucination in the mid 1980s where I swear to the FSM that the person I was with and I could both see attributes of others, one of those attributes was how much information they contained. Of course, at the time, the discussion we had was mostly if the volume of information was intelligence, wisdom, or knowledge and what the differences between those words really were...
However, it has made some amusing mental bubblegum since then and I am reminded of it fairly often. I've thought of ways to prove or disprove this but, I simply can't.
Well, I am not a physicist but I am pretty sure I can hold my own in such a discussion if, by holding my own, I'm allowed to admit that there is much that I do not know.
Having said that - what are you calling a law of nature? Assuming the laws of physics are what you're calling the laws of nature then I don't think any of them really changed at the conception of the universe - at least not in commonly accepted theories. Now, I could be mistaken and this intentionally discounts theories that are not widely held to be true or similar.
As for the post you are addressing. I'm reasonably certain that their comment, that the results will be the same, is inaccurate and misleading. I suspect it's from a general misunderstanding of an actually difficult topic: Probabilities. This, too, may be a difficult subject to consider: Chaos theory and models.
Now, inasmuch as I understand, there is a high probability that the results would have been similar. Given the chaotic nature, it's a near certainty that the results would not have been identical. The statistical likelihood of our own universe existing is significant enough to be considered mathematically impossible, a cyclic-similarity would be so improbable that I'd have to even approach that level of mathematics. An exact replication would be so unlikely that, frankly, nobody who isn't stoned would do the math and the stoned would be incapable of doing the math.
I'm actually kind of hoping that they are just misunderstanding something or have articulated it poorly. What are the chances of a new cycle creating this solar system, in this locality, with this particular planet, with this level of development, having this same discussion, at this particular time? (I'm going with; "It's not even worth doing the maths involved.") If they wish to exclude such particulars from the definition of "the same galaxy" and remove other particulars while simply stating that the new galaxy will have the same rules as the first then, by all means, I'm likely to submit that I'd expect that to be true.
In fact, I'm actually hoping the latter is true. I'm hoping it was simply poorly communicated. The existence of our universe is improbable at a point where it's so unlikely as to be mythical except we can see it and measure it. The existence of our universe in the configuration it has is orders of magnitude (how many, I do not know) less likely - to the point of being mathematically impossible but, here we have it. The odds of it being cyclical are, from my layman's understanding, pretty good. The odds of it having the same rules each time, if it is cyclical, is actually a near certainty. However, the odds of it resulting in the same universe are really not even worth computing. So, for 'some definitions of same' then, sure. But for the actual definition of 'same' then no. I'm hoping they meant similar.
In closing, I could be unaware of something and I am not a physicist. I do understand some physics at a level greater than the vast majority of people. At the same time, there are people on this very site who have a far greater understanding than I and the vast majority of those people that I mention do not frequent this site. The vast majority of people is not really a huge barrier with this. Simply understanding a goodly amount of General Relativity Theory puts on at that level. Hell, even having heard the term "spooky action at a distance" probably puts on at a level greater than 50% of the population. So, my claim is no great shakes - in other words, I may be mistaken.
It's not really redefining it from a chemical process so much as it is expressing it mathematically. Chemistry is mathematics. It is abstracted, from math, to some extent but it is mathematics, regardless.
It's rated for 12.5 Mb/sec and I get about 14.5 at or so with various speed tests and downloads. I do have multiple connections but I'm only counting the one. (I have a separate connection for the garage/workshop and one in the house that was on the property when I bought it.) I use, currently, Fairpoint but I can use an DSL provider that is willing to service my area. The torrents all are enabled to be active at all times and I still have plenty of bandwidth to watch my documentaries - I don't bother with the high def stuff, I don't need it for a documentary. I think YouTube is set to auto-quality at 480 if available.
Who's going to pay for that extra 50M AUS? If it's that close then you can probably pay to splice into it for your residence or business. What is with you people, anyhow?
Some folks just want to be offended. They will find a reason for outrage no matter what you do. There is, as near as I can tell, absolutely nothing you can do to prevent someone from being unhappy - I'm not sure it's even worth trying in *most* situations. The 'net has enabled greater levels of communication. This means the volume level, from the professional class of offended people, is louder than it used to be.
No, I do not think this will result in a better society. Yes, I do think this means that society has improved - we're able to be outraged over trifling matters and not our baby having been eaten by a lion. So, there's that.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds like reasonable advice. On Slashdot? Hmm... There must be something wrong. I must be missing something? I've not made it to the bottom of the thread so I'm assuming that there's a nasty joke in there, or a horrific surprise.
I'm partial to leaving the older interface as an option. If the new project is done properly, with time, the old interface can (probably) just be an overlay using new APIs. This will allow users to 'skin' the app to their choosing. Choice? No... I'm definitely missing something.
That sounds like my old work. It was re-written by actual professionals. I even had a nested menu item that said, "I'm too drunk." I had plans for that button. Plans, I tell you! Also, I was drunk. I kind of miss those days, stumbling out of the office for a couple of hours sleep and then returning with barely a shower and a breakfast drink. The office got quiet at 5:00 PM and at 4:00 AM you're realizing that you've not gone home for a couple of days but it has been fun and involving.
You've never actually driven a 100 year old car, have you? Suffice to say, you probably can't drive one. Depending on the make, the throttle may not even be where you're expecting it and it almost certainly doesn't start in the manner you're expecting. Shifting is not going to be even remotely like you're expecting and there may not even be a clutch. Yeah, you're going to break the hell out of a 100 year old car.
Yes, but for a brief moment, they felt important and that their opinion mattered. Of course, one might also ask, why else post if not for those reasons? We're not altruists, no matter how much we'd like to pretend we are.
Ugh... So, I used the mighty Google and found this:
http://motherboard.vice.com/bl...
It would appear that 17 out of some 250ish cases have been charged because of surveillance. I was kind of hoping for zero but it is what it is. Now, that's the NSA and not the CIA - I don't know about the CIA. I'd imagine similar results are possible.
Personally, as cold as this sounds, I'd rather they have been able to carry out their attacks then suffer the real attacks on my liberties. Yes, I'm aware that good people might die as a result. I accept that it may be myself or someone I care about. Yes, I'd rather keep my rights than live in fear. I know, I'm a cold bastard. *sighs* Yes, I'm selfish for wanting to keep my rights. I accept that.
I'd like to think that I could, but I realize that makes me ineligible.
No, that was Minix. Linus didn't hate Windows, he wasn't even using Windows. Have you not read the infamous Usenet exchange?
Try this:
sudo sysctl vm.swappiness=40 (change to lower and lower until happy)
When you're happy:
sudo bash -c "echo 'vm.swappiness = 40' >> /etc/sysctl.conf"
If it doesn't hold then try editing/creating this: /proc/sys/vm/swappiness
And put just the number in there and save it - you'll want gksudo $your_text editor for this.
GPL was written in 1989 if I recall correctly. I think it's a direct descendant of prior licenses - namely emacs among others (gcc maybe?). My memory is a bit fuzzy and that was quite some time ago. I believe 3.1 was early 1990s.
kgiii@kgiii-desktop-8:~$ uptime
02:23:30 up 72 days, 4:32, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.21, 0.39
kgiii@kgiii-desktop:~$
I rebooted just prior to leaving on my current adventure and I rebooted sometime since, well - 72 days ago, for e kernel update. I can, reasonably, expect to go twice that long or even ten times that long - if I want. I've a server that I think has been about three years now? I can't do that, as easily, with Windows. I like Windows well enough but I prefer to use the correct tool for the job I'm trying to do and that, in this case, means Linux.
This may interest you:
http://www.jdpower.com/sites/d...
(PDF warning)
Oddly, I've nary a problem with my BMWs over the years - nothing major, at any rate. On the other hand, I keep them properly maintained. Yes, yes it is expensive but it seems to be worth it.
I bought a metric ton of shares when they were at ~24. No, I still haven't sold them.
I imagine that might have been me. 'Tis a long story but that's what blurted out of me while in a museum, while tripping, and surrounded by a tour group. The lady friend that was with me turned and said, "My brain has been removed by a skyhook." We were good until she turned around and saw a giant lobster hanging on the wall and started going "meep meep meep!" (Which, at the time, indicated great excitement.) We were not technically asked to leave, even then, but we knew we'd overstayed our welcome so we meandered off on our own.
It was, however, an original thought and a gift to you. You can have it, do with it what you will, or even discard it. I'd suggest not keeping it, it's contagious.
Surely, you've had an original idea.
"Pink and purple garbanzo beans fester in my scrotum, not entirely unlike fuchsia."
You can have that one, for free even.
There's a good chance that you're unfamiliar with it but they should have let the monkey drive.
"Open up the switch, I'm gonna let him through the hole, 'cause the monkey's got the locomotive under control."
-The Monkey and the Engineer (a different Grateful Dead song that doesn't get radio play)
Buddhists are not all peace-loving types who will never harm another under no circumstances. We're not a homogeneous group with the same universal beliefs. I am a Buddhist. I often carry a firearm. (I'd hate to use it but I will. It's frequently unloaded, actually. It's trivially easy to load.) We're not all vegetarians who will run out and set ourselves on fire if we're being oppressed. It generally takes a bit to get us pissed off (that's pretty universal, we're a pragmatic lot) but we can and will retaliate. See, for example, the various martial arts forms that have come from monasteries. Those arts were not perfected to amuse tourists and make bad B movies.
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
I don't feel like typing it all out again. You may be interested in it. Feel free to tear it apart, poke at it, ponder it, whatever. It's just something that's been stuck in my head for 30 years or so - it's likely wrong but it does make for some interesting thoughts.
My current working mental theory is, if you want to hear it, that information is similar to matter. It may not be tangible but it exists. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Matter can be altered in many ways.
Information is similar to matter, in my current thinking, in that it has "always" been here. It has neither been created nor destroyed. It has simply been put together in new and interesting ways. It has been learned about, it has been combined, it has faded from our records but is not gone.
I'd go so far as to humbly submit that information has mass and we're unable to measure it. Why do I say that it has mass? The evidence suggests that it does. Note how we have attained information at an ever-increasing pace? As the mass increases so does its power of attraction. I'd suspect there's some time relativity in there too - does not the world seem to go faster? Why is it that we call those with less intelligence than their peers "slow?"
What is this mass? I do not know. How to measure it? I do not know. Is there a way to prove this, thus making it science? I do not know. I have, however, been pondering this for years - since a fairly decent mescaline hallucination in the mid 1980s where I swear to the FSM that the person I was with and I could both see attributes of others, one of those attributes was how much information they contained. Of course, at the time, the discussion we had was mostly if the volume of information was intelligence, wisdom, or knowledge and what the differences between those words really were...
However, it has made some amusing mental bubblegum since then and I am reminded of it fairly often. I've thought of ways to prove or disprove this but, I simply can't.
Well, I am not a physicist but I am pretty sure I can hold my own in such a discussion if, by holding my own, I'm allowed to admit that there is much that I do not know.
Having said that - what are you calling a law of nature? Assuming the laws of physics are what you're calling the laws of nature then I don't think any of them really changed at the conception of the universe - at least not in commonly accepted theories. Now, I could be mistaken and this intentionally discounts theories that are not widely held to be true or similar.
As for the post you are addressing. I'm reasonably certain that their comment, that the results will be the same, is inaccurate and misleading. I suspect it's from a general misunderstanding of an actually difficult topic: Probabilities. This, too, may be a difficult subject to consider: Chaos theory and models.
Now, inasmuch as I understand, there is a high probability that the results would have been similar. Given the chaotic nature, it's a near certainty that the results would not have been identical. The statistical likelihood of our own universe existing is significant enough to be considered mathematically impossible, a cyclic-similarity would be so improbable that I'd have to even approach that level of mathematics. An exact replication would be so unlikely that, frankly, nobody who isn't stoned would do the math and the stoned would be incapable of doing the math.
I'm actually kind of hoping that they are just misunderstanding something or have articulated it poorly. What are the chances of a new cycle creating this solar system, in this locality, with this particular planet, with this level of development, having this same discussion, at this particular time? (I'm going with; "It's not even worth doing the maths involved.") If they wish to exclude such particulars from the definition of "the same galaxy" and remove other particulars while simply stating that the new galaxy will have the same rules as the first then, by all means, I'm likely to submit that I'd expect that to be true.
In fact, I'm actually hoping the latter is true. I'm hoping it was simply poorly communicated. The existence of our universe is improbable at a point where it's so unlikely as to be mythical except we can see it and measure it. The existence of our universe in the configuration it has is orders of magnitude (how many, I do not know) less likely - to the point of being mathematically impossible but, here we have it. The odds of it being cyclical are, from my layman's understanding, pretty good. The odds of it having the same rules each time, if it is cyclical, is actually a near certainty. However, the odds of it resulting in the same universe are really not even worth computing. So, for 'some definitions of same' then, sure. But for the actual definition of 'same' then no. I'm hoping they meant similar.
In closing, I could be unaware of something and I am not a physicist. I do understand some physics at a level greater than the vast majority of people. At the same time, there are people on this very site who have a far greater understanding than I and the vast majority of those people that I mention do not frequent this site. The vast majority of people is not really a huge barrier with this. Simply understanding a goodly amount of General Relativity Theory puts on at that level. Hell, even having heard the term "spooky action at a distance" probably puts on at a level greater than 50% of the population. So, my claim is no great shakes - in other words, I may be mistaken.
It's not really redefining it from a chemical process so much as it is expressing it mathematically. Chemistry is mathematics. It is abstracted, from math, to some extent but it is mathematics, regardless.
I am, of course, biased.
uMatrix.
It's rated for 12.5 Mb/sec and I get about 14.5 at or so with various speed tests and downloads. I do have multiple connections but I'm only counting the one. (I have a separate connection for the garage/workshop and one in the house that was on the property when I bought it.) I use, currently, Fairpoint but I can use an DSL provider that is willing to service my area. The torrents all are enabled to be active at all times and I still have plenty of bandwidth to watch my documentaries - I don't bother with the high def stuff, I don't need it for a documentary. I think YouTube is set to auto-quality at 480 if available.
Who's going to pay for that extra 50M AUS? If it's that close then you can probably pay to splice into it for your residence or business. What is with you people, anyhow?
Some folks just want to be offended. They will find a reason for outrage no matter what you do. There is, as near as I can tell, absolutely nothing you can do to prevent someone from being unhappy - I'm not sure it's even worth trying in *most* situations. The 'net has enabled greater levels of communication. This means the volume level, from the professional class of offended people, is louder than it used to be.
No, I do not think this will result in a better society. Yes, I do think this means that society has improved - we're able to be outraged over trifling matters and not our baby having been eaten by a lion. So, there's that.
This one CHEAP TRICK that will sucker the public into reading this headline and clicking through!