Rio and its predecesor in Unix v8/v10 did it better than X. In some cases we got the worst:
- POSIX bloat vs Plan9's simple C and even simpler API
- ioctl's vs everything it's a file
- Complex socket spawning vs open() and dial() under Plan9/Go
- ALSA vs tuned up OSSv4, or plaing audio/mixerfs under 9front
- find -which syntax is huge- vs walk -f (or -d for dirs) | grep
- RDP/VNC/SSH/NFS/SMB vs just rcpu+auth (9p) and run rio(4) and for files... 9fs which does a simple bind()
- Symlinks and hard links vs bind and namespaces.
- GDB and SSH vs importing a remote /proc in a rio window and remote-debugging your damn remote machine as if it were your own. How cool is that? Ditto with devices. Import sound cards, network cards with the whole IP stack. NAT you say? No more.
- FFSv2 (hello OpenBSD) vs current GeFS under 9front which is like a miracle over what OBSD it's trying, the bad ZFS license or BTRFS not being ready on GNU yet. Probably the Hurd people will port GeFS to Hurd/Mach first, before BTRFS gets even ready...
- Dynamic vs static linking. 9front, a suite of multiarch compilers. Set $objtype, compile, link, deploy a standalone binary. Ready, as if it were a Go binary under Unix, but without glibc oddities. ARM binaries from 386? Done.
You need a crazy long i686-gnu-foo-bar and the rest of crazyness? Not anymore. These come in src form, compile and install them, no internet required. Literal two damn commands to do so, from any to any arch.
- SH/KSH/Bash. Complexity ridden shells. Here's rc. No aliases there, just functions. No complex escaping, just () for strings, ^ to concat, ' ' for quoting. Problem solved.
Even the conditonal words' syntax it's like throwing down all the complexity giving you a weirdly simple shell.
- PCRE and ex commands under vi/nvi/vim (bloat) vs Sam and structural regexes. Sam it's like a graphical vi, period, there's nothing alien of it. Imagine a modeless vi with a small frame to input commands with an easier syntax:
Mars is only a few billion dollars of investment away from being quite habitable, and Mr. Musk should make plans to retire there along with his friends and senior execs within the year.
Imagine what you would say if they actually did so: invest (more than) a few billions in making part of Mars habitable by, say, building one of those 50's SF domes or something outlandish like that. Move there with their billions locked up in the new colony. Make it work, prove it actually was feasible. Manage to stay alive long enough to make the colony largely self-sustaining. Never mind the how, never mind the likeliness of it happening, just be John Lennon for a second and Imagine.
Those fat cats took their billions to create their own colony on planet X while we're left here on a dying Earth
Why should those greedy capitalists get their own planet? They should open it up to refugees from Earth!
Mars wasn't built by Musk & Co., it was built by $(insert_favourite_group) and belongs to them
Etcetera. Same old story, same old song. Quite a tiring one at that. I'd say let them have a go at creating a Mars colony and if they succeed - which is rather unlikely - they get to decide what to do with their settlement.
Notably lacking in comparisons in speed, accuracy and costs vs KNN-hyperspace, Bayesian-updaters like SpamAssassin's SpamBayes, and traditional rules methods.
Yeah, I collect papers where run-of-the-mill people do run-of-the-mill classification problems and the standard of quality is not what I wish it was. This paper avoids the common antipattern of wasting effort on Word2Vec and five other things that never work.
They are using Enron which is a very strange email spool to work with because it's almost entirely spam free. The problem in Enron is to find a tiny amount of criminal activity in a vast volume of innocent communications whereas the problem in a normal email spool today is to find a tiny amount of meaningful email in a great flood of spam and attempted criminal activity.
> What the President believes is not, has not been, and cannot be the basis of law.
Yes, but...
> If it were, the President would be a king.
First, rape is an immoral act that the law does and should punish. It is a factually bad thing, regardless of whether a legal system recognizes it as such.
Second, pace the legal positivists, the law is a determination of the moral law within particular circumstances. It is not arbitrary without becoming false. As the old legal maxim goes, lex iniusta non est lex: an unjust law is not a law. This means justice is presupposed by the positive law; the latter exists in the service of the former.
Third, kings are not God. They are not the basis for the law in the sense that they can simply legislate anything they want. One reason I've already given: a valid law can only be a determination of the natural law; declaring dogs to have five legs is meaningless.
Another reason is that kings were bound by tradition, custom, and various feudal contracts. In Europe, the Church also kept kings in check. In countries like Poland, the king increasingly became more "presidential" in the sense that the sovereign could not enact any laws without the consent of the nobility (per the Nihil Novi Act [0]).
reply