sudioStudio64

In fact I think that you can have a functional Democracy without any freedom. That's kind of what I mean. I don't think that people are interested in freedom and I don't mean that to sound like a tea party fan. I just think that this place wouldn't be the way it is if people were genuinely interested in freedom...in fact it's such a nebulous term that it's almost meaningless.

Remember in Braveheart where Mel WahtsHisFAce rides in front of the soldiers waiting to go into battle to establish yet another monarchy, "What will you do without freedom?" That's a great summation of Americans arguing about freedom during an election cycle. We are an open society. We are a little d democratic society. I don't think that we are a free society.

Sorry for the blahblah blah stuff. It's just been on my mind a lot for some reason. Back to the salt mine.

He makes some really good points about the way that the capital owning classes actually don't want greater democratic enfranchisement. He also makes some great points about how there doesn't seem to be as much inclination towards revolutionary art.

As people come to grips with the decline of American power and begin to realize that, in fact, we aren't free or special or really living up to any of the high ideals that are described in some of our founding documents and rhetoric you will see more arguments like these.

At the root of his critique is that he really does believe that we are special and this place can be magic. It isn't and it won't be.

EDIT: Libertarianism is a dying hooker licking 9V alkaline batteries for that metallic taste of excitement every time it gets to posit a counterfactual notion about some basic human tenant. It's a foolish sounding semi-sorta ideology when espoused by the middle class who are algorithmically incapable of seeing any benefit from it's implementation and a smug blanket of self-serving satisfaction for the wealthy who use it to make their social position intellectually palatable in a "dinner party" conversational sense.

While the wealthy capitalists in this article may really entertain ludicrous thoughts of building a treehouse-fort-island where they are the biggest bully, they don't do so in any way that might upset their own apple cart's on the way to markets created and policed by a political process that they go out of their way to openly despise but are intravenously connected to in ways that conjoined twins sharing a single heart would consider too close for comfort.

Libertarianism's philosopher's are the unpopular clowns at the children's birthday party of society hoping that bending their "business innovation's" into balloon animals will convince the starving attendees to actually enjoy watching them eat all of the cake. "Look it's a lion! Rawr!"

EDIT EDIT: COME ON. You know that's good. Come on!

Modern C++ can really shave some of the rough edges off of using COM.

I dig it. Thanks for being polite. Cheers.

That's pretty amazing. It would be interesting to hear more about the testing they are doing.

I was expecting this kind of thing today. I'm surprised that there is only one "oh noes muh freedums!" post on the front page.

I've been seeing on some sites that it will be out in the September time-frame. As to why the downvotes? HN, man. HN.

They only require a license for VM's that run Windows. You can run as many non-windows VM's as you want on the free hyper-v server on as many procs as it will run on.

Backup was there in the last CTP. Assuming it's still there.

I'm not being snide. I'm saying that they want to minimize the negative aspects of their arrangement with society while maximizing the positive aspects.

Positive aspect: Cops have a benefit of the doubt that other citizens don't have when it comes to the use of force.

Negative aspect: They stop someone that resists arrest.

If you are trying to maximize the positive things you get from the job and minimize the negative you will treat every person that resists arrest as if it were life threatening.

When you add up the benefits that actually accrue to the police (and not just from asking them... like other conservative organizations they generally are very sensitive to perceived losses of authority) you see that they get a middle class life, authority over the physical safety of people around them, and higher burden of proof required to convict them. They also maintain one of the only government sanctioned unions so they have greater economic democratic power as well. They are super-citizens and they have come to believe that the deference paid to them is in fact owed to them. They have convinced themselves that their lives are always in danger in every interaction so they are owed greater deference by society. Its my contention that the danger's they face are not immediately present in every interaction and that they have actually been involved in creating the policies that put them in the situations where danger is greatest.

Its time that they stop taking for granted the powers and position that society bestows. Its also time for us to decriminalize some of the behaviors that the police depend on to bolster their position politically.

great book.

I, for one, get tired of the constant refrain of hero worship while these guys say that there number one job is to get home safely.

They are afforded terrible powers to intervene in, and disrupt, someone's life. That trade is made under the assumption that they do a dangerous job.

A benefit is afforded to them due to the responsibility that they bear.

Obviously, they want to have as much power with as little danger as possible. They want to maximize the benefit the receive (largely being above the law and a middle class existence) and minimize the repercussions of what they owe for it (possibly being in danger).

Its the same in other areas of American life where elites have abdicated their responsibilities but have become accustomed to the benefits afforded them to the point that they think it's owed to them. That has to change.

EDIT: for clarification and spelling.

I love this story. I believe that the Church of Scientology did the same thing a long time ago in the early days of the internet.

It sounds like the Mozilla solution of building some kind of intelligence around advertising might be the way to go then. Injecting all this stuff in the page load is crazy.

Why can't the site just collect some data from the client and forward it to the ad networks on the backend? All of this stuff needs to happen out of band.

I'll give you that. Cheers.

You make it sound like the ops for AD and Exchange type businesses is some bad thing. It's a huge installed base. It's massive. they provide revenue. Open source dev stacks build mindshare not direct revenue.

Yes, they were slow to adapt to the changes that happened in the last decade. They seem to be turning it around. Why the emotions?

Its interesting that TOR takes a circuit based approach and these guys use a packet based approach... its the same thing that happened in telecom over a decade ago. (its analogous, anyway)

How many times does this have to happen? I could be missing something but why do fonts have drivers?

I'm actually a huge windows fan, so I'm not really just talking snack about them. The new universal app platform should make some stuff like this obsolete over time, I hope.

I detest advertising. It's literally designed to undermine reason and supplant critical evaluation of ones needs and priorities.

As for web advertising, maybe I was the last person on the planet to figure this out but sometime late last year the web just became unusable on most popular news sites. Popover ads that come up before you can read the content and multiple large ads inline with the content and that "no mans land" on the right.

I seriously hope there is a way to make MS Edge default to the "reading view".

I certainly don't want to rehash some of the arguments about it, because I wasn't a fan of them at the time...but I was referring to the context switch penalty of running multiple system level services is separate processes.

Mind you, I've always thought that argument was specious for several reasons...but in a naive implementation breaking a kernel unto multiple processes would have to have higher context switch overhead.

I've always though, though, that not everything needs to be process isolated, and using more of a message pass system could probably overcome context switch overhead in multiprocessor system's

EDIT: GOD DAAMN PHONE. I think that the reliability gains may more than make up for any perf problems.

There's been quite a few hurd articles lately. I wonder what the interest is?

Maybe focusing on only the drivers needed to make it run well in VMware or openbox would improve the usability story. I've always thought it was interesting, but a lot of people wrote it off after linux took off. I can't help but think that hardware performance has improved to the point that the supposed perf penalties of microkernels wouldn't matter.

IT WAS A JOKE. Damn.

I thought it was funny, ya know, because it's about Microsoft, but its really about Google...it was a joke.

EDIT: And I'm sticking by it. That was funny.

I was joking dude. It was a joke because people always put that in any post about Microsoft. So, it was sarcasm.

But way to be a tool about it.

Holy shit. I was fucking joking. Wow.

I really can't believe that it didn't come across as a joke either. You guys can't possibly have thought that I was trying to write embrace, extend, and extinguish and then realized all of a sudden that it didn't fit in this case?

You guys need to lighten up.

EDIT: Yep. It was funny and you guys need to come off your fucking high horses or you're just as bad as the "Embrace,exten,blah blah blah" kid.

Embrace, extend, and wait, whut?

I'm looking forward to his take on the recent thing about memristor machines being able to solve NP-complete problems...it was on HN a couple of days ago.

I see what you did there. Point taken.

I. Can. Not. Wait.

I hope that at some point they add something like that virtual computer that Notch had added to 0x10c?

No matter what this is the first game that I've been excited about since I was a kid.

EDIT: Damn. The negativity in here is weird. What is it with gamer's that they just want to shit all over things? No gas planets...yeah they are real pricks for that. ??? What? A procedural universe is kind of a big deal. There's nothing that says that this thing can't be extended in the future as well.

The planets look the same? If you look at the screens from the PSX demo there was some really beautiful landscapes there. There is a palette that was chosen to reflect early sci-fi novel covers. That's actually really cool.

Remember, you can always go play another muddy-poo-brown cover based first person shooter. There will be 10 published by the time you finish reading this comment.

I smell a browser parser bug in the making.