1084: "Server Problem"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Aniviller
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Aniviller » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:02 pm UTC

Something like this happened to me when I managed to lose /lib (not my fault). (windows equivalent is sort of like removing \\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM folder). Basically, no new processes could be run, everything spewed out confusing errors and I knew rebooting would brick the computer. But no matter, you look around, find a live stick, do a patch job with package manager, chroot and stuff, reboot and clean up. 10 minutes. On windows, you'd have to reinstall everything (losing all the configuration and installed applications).

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby bmonk » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:03 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:
Harry Voyager wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:[...]
See? All it takes, is an average understanding of Linux, having seen Adobe software installed on Linux before, having used the Adobe documentation system before, knowing how to run a VM, and knowing a bit about Java.
Ok… actually, it’s a lot. ;)
But I though we’re among techies here, aren’t we?


Should I be slightly concerned that the forums are actually diagnosing a problem that was supposedly impossible?


Did you actually expect anything different from that? :D

And I sense a potential flame war just around the corner...


I thought that was the point of the challenge to a true hacker: to do what can't be done just prove that you can do it.
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

rwk
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:28 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby rwk » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:17 pm UTC

mmcmonster wrote:
ahammel wrote:I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where I fragged lis but still have echo available.


Wasn't there a great little story about a guy who ran "rm -R /" instead of "rm -R ~/" and ^C broke out of it on a production system, and a colleague helped restore the system while it was still running without most of the standard Unix filesystem commands?

Anyone have a link to that?


No, but I can relate a similar real story at MIT.

Back in the 1970's, MIT's AI lab and Lab for Computer Science (now combined as MIT CSAIL) had 4 PDP-10 systems running a home-brew operating system called ITS (which originated on the PDP-6 actuall). Filenames were 6bit characters, of the form DSK:DIR;NAME1 NAME2

We had networking, so we could refer to files on the other filesystems remotely, so AI:RWK;FOO 1 would refer to my file FOO1 on the AI lab's PDP-10, and MC:RWK;FOO 1 would refer to the Macsyma Consortium's PDP-10.

Guy Steele (yes, the Guy Steele famous for his contributions to Lisp, C, Java, and Scheme -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_L._Steele,_Jr. ) had a Lisp package called allfiles, that would let you do various file operations on groups of files. It took a list of filespecs of the form ((DSK DIR) FILE1 FILE2), and let you perform operations with wildcards.

Disks were very small back then, and we had a lot of users, and there was always pressure to clean up. A grad student (whose name I recall to this day, but won't publish) was putting together a program to automatically clean up -- and he made a little mistake.

Instead of a list of filespecs, he supplied a single filespec.

So instead of (((DSK GRAD) TMPFIL *)), he wrote ((DSK GRAD) TMPFIL *).

Well, it didn't match anything for (DSK GRAD) or TMPFIL -- but it liked '*' just fine, and proceeded to interpret that as *:*;* * -- and started deleting everything.

Now, one thing to know about ITS -- it had ZERO file protection at all. Anyone could read or write any file whatsoever.

So suddenly there was a whole lot of filespace available, and growing.

I don't remember exactly what happened from there -- who noticed or what the immediate action was. As I recall, it was around 1/3 of the entire filesystem that was deleted, but I've always wondered if, after it finished with MC, if it would have started on the systems.

Guy very quickly changed the package to reject the malformed arguments that caused the problem.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Coyne » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:16 am UTC

tetromino wrote:
asdfzxc wrote:Can somebody explain what's going on in the third panel?

[snip many problems]

Basically, the import is that given that even an attempt to run the most basic Unix command (ls) fails in an extraordinarily insane manner, the server configuration is entirely fucked. One ought to throw away the hard drive and start over.


Or (as I think is implied by the comic) wait for the singularity. Because it is only then that there will be someone with enough intelligence to sort that mess out.
In all fairness...

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Max™ » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:23 am UTC

ahammel wrote:
pscottdv wrote:I don't understand why everyone is tripping over what happens when she types "ls". He was obviously screwing around with the "alias" command.

Presumably his entire path is buggered such that 'cd' command would also attempt to run the cd.jar binary in his Adroid vm (which he keeps in his Adobe docs).

Oh lord, I didn't even consider that he might have set it up to do that as well.

Btw, Android is written in java, but you convert it afterwards, so an android vm will be working with .apk's, not .jar files, if you DO get it to work with .jar files in such a way that it hijacks basic commands... wow.
mu

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby styrofoam » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:27 am UTC

Actually, on Android:

apks are only for apps. Libraries, such as framework.jar, are jars. Actually, apks are jars too, just renamed. But they both contain dex files (Dalvik EXecutable), various nifty tidbits like images and layouts, and AndroidManifest.xml in the apks, instead of class files.

the unix apps, like ls, init, sh, and cat, are written in C and combined into "toolbox", basically an Apache-licensed clone of Busybox.

In other words, WTH superluser.
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
ellbur
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:31 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby ellbur » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:29 am UTC

This morning a got a JavaScript error while building code to run on a microcontroller. Then I came home and saw this. I think I can safely say get out of my head, Randall.
I don't think you realize that for me this is real.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Max™ » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:30 am UTC

That clears it up better, ty styrofoam.
mu

Airbuilder7
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:20 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Airbuilder7 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:55 am UTC

sab39 wrote:
ahammel wrote:I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where I fragged lis but still have echo available.


ls is a binary program that's in the /bin directory; echo is usually a shell builtin function.

Which means even if you've destroyed every binary on your system, as long as you are sitting logged in to a shell that was already running, you have echo available, along with a few other things.

By judicious use of echo * to simulate ls, output redirection to simulate cp, and some other things (I forget how you do chmod for example) you can bootstrap a system back into existence even when you can't run any binaries on it at all and all the basic binary files and libraries have been deleted.

I read this and experienced an overwhelming sensation of awe. I might be a rocket scientist, but you programming guys are wizards. :shock: :D

ikrase
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 3:22 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby ikrase » Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:34 am UTC

Oh please. Only idiots believe in the “singularity”. Because:
If people start to not being able to keep up with technology, that obviously limits their ability to make it accelerate even faster.
So the acceleration will gradually flatten out at that point, meaning the speed of progress will become constant. It is naturally self-limiting.
Meaning a “singularity” can never happen.
Duh. This is blatantly obvious even to a child. Kurzweil is an idiot.


There is more than one idea of singularity. While people tend to assume that they will transcend all limits no matter how difficult, and assume that it will be within their lifetime, other types of singularities (esp those involving AI that does research on making better AI, and expanding and speeding up the AI-designing-and-building infrastructure) are not always stupid.

I don't liek Kurzweil, though.
[bibliography]XKVCBDOSLDMSD[/bibliography]

philip1201
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby philip1201 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:16 am UTC

Spoiler:
roochkeez wrote:IIRC, the singularity is the moment in time when computers become smarter than humans.


BAReFOOt wrote:[the singularity] is the point where humans supposedly can’t keep up with the technological progress anymore.


Max™ wrote:A singularity is a point beyond which predictions can not be made.


sab39 wrote:I thought [the singularity] was where the curve of human-assisted computers and the curve of computer-enhanced humans intersect so there's basically no effective distinction between a human and a computer any more.


rmsgrey wrote:Any virtual intelligence scheme I've encountered runs into a ceiling where the additional communications overhead from adding a person equals the capacity gain from adding them [and therefore the singularity is impossible].

[...]

Conclusion [of those who think the singularity will occur]: Super-exponential growth of computer capability will happen, and we'll all live in some unimaginable utopia.


RhodeKille wrote:All you have to do to justify the singularity happening is realize that we are now designing the next generation of computers using the previous one.


Lynx Cat wrote:I argue that artificial intelligence is actually entirely beside the point of a technological singularity, because the collective action of a large number of people working in a coordinated manner and with enough internal communication (something increasingly common nowadays) is enough to create e virtual intelligence that's much more capable than that of any individual involved, with no upper limit on its capacity as you scale up the system. [...] But yeah, the most common idea about the "cybersingularity" (gonna call it that from now on) is that technology accelerates beyond our idea to keep up with it because technology (as in artificial intelligence) itself may become capable of accelerating technology beyond our understanding.

[...]

Compare the world today to what it was 300 years ago, which is nothing in historical terms. The singularity already happened.


throwawategea wrote:The term "singularity" was used for a long time to refer to relatively sane ideas. Then Kurzweil made up his nonsensical bullshit, attached the "singularity" label to it, and then promoted it so heavily that he almost stole the term.


ikrase wrote:There is more than one idea of singularity. While people tend to assume that they will transcend all limits no matter how difficult, and assume that it will be within their lifetime, other types of singularities (esp those involving AI that does research on making better AI, and expanding and speeding up the AI-designing-and-building infrastructure) are not always stupid.


ITT: Everybody has strong opinions about a word nobody has the same definition of.

Since it's probably useless to try and make one good definition of the singularity, let's all just drop that word from our vocabularies and talk about what we actually think is going to happen.

The human brain is made up of inefficient elements. The memory center is leaky, the sensory systems have to process and store things subconsciously because the conscious forebrain is too busy, neurons require dozens of different chemicals to operate - the brain is squishy, weak and flawed. A synthetic replica of a neuron can send the same information a hundred times faster, and take up a million times less space (100 times smaller in every direction), than the real thing. Einstein's brain is not larger than that of any other. The human brain can be formed with the right instructions, therefore an Einstein-level brain can be built at 10^-6 times the size of a human brain, and work 100 times faster. The senses can be simulated at a similar level of compactness, but let's drop an order of magnitude to be on the safe side.

This means that, at the lower limit, it is possible to store 10^5 Einstein-level intelligences, and simulate their communications on the level of detail of any modern video game, on a computer the size of a human brain, and that for every hundred seconds that passes in their virtual reality, only one passes in real reality. An entire scientific community in a single head.

And if you think it is impossible for these AI to surpass us into areas incomprehensible to regular humans, that would be as foolish as saying it's impossible for science to be incomprehensible to lay men. Assuming the field of research can be turned theoretical/digital without significant loss of rapidity of advancement, like AI research, then this single AI would take a year to be a century ahead of us in AI research. And the AI's components are human-identical, so if they can't improve upon AI, then neither can we, and if they can, they will continue until they reach the limits of physical capacity.

And this is all without any obvious increases of efficiency - switching from neurons to quantum computers, further reduction of size or acceleration of transmission of data, removal of unnecessary function, etc. All of these can improve the capacity of AI beyond 10^7 times human levels.

So, in question form:

Is it possible for AI to surpass humans? Yes.
Is it possible for AI to improve itself? Yes.
Is it possible for AI to experience exponential growth of intelligence? Yes, until it hits unknown physical limits, which are at least 10^7 times the limits of human group intelligence.
Is it possible for humans to experience exponential growth in group intelligence? Yes, until they hit unknown physical limits.
Is it possible for technology to become incomprehensible for humans? Yes. This has already happened for sufficiently broad subject areas.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Max™ » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:23 am UTC

I don't do strong opinions, in my opinion opinions aren't worth much.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Singularity.html

In general, a singularity is a point at which an equation, surface, etc., blows up or becomes degenerate. Singularities are often also called singular points.


Kurzweil is a cunt for pushing the term like that, as are singulitarian church members. Technorapture my ass.
mu

PHDrillSergeant
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:43 pm UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby PHDrillSergeant » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:26 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:
roochkeez wrote:IIRC, the singularity is the moment in time when computers become smarter than humans.


Not correct. It is the point where humans supposedly can’t keep up with the technological progress anymore.
Which is nonsense, since, as I explained above, there will never be such a point.
Unless of course I haven’t kept up, and Kurzweil conveniently changed the definition or "interpretation" since the last time I checked.


Also not correct.

The singularity is the moment when AIs become intelligent enough to work out how to make themselves smarter, thus increasing the AI's intelligence exponentially and (in theory) infinitely.

philip1201
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby philip1201 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:19 pm UTC

PHDrillSergeant wrote:The singularity is the moment when AIs become intelligent enough to work out how to make themselves smarter, thus increasing the AI's intelligence exponentially and (in theory) infinitely.


Including the "(in theory) infinitely" statement, singularities are categorically impossible because of the holographic principle.

Excluding that statement, but focusing on the word "exponentially", this means AI that improve by e^e^t, t^3, t^-1 or similar functions would not count as having underwent singularities.

"Make themselves smarter" and "increasing [their own] intelligence" are functionally identical, so I take the liberty of deleting the former (because there's no reason to introduce a second vaguely defined term).

Your definition is now "The singularity is the moment when AIs become intelligent enough to increase their own intelligence". By this definition, A computer which runs an evolutionary algorithm for improving the efficiency of its own components or software is achieving the singularity. So that's still probably not the definition you're looking for.

Arcadium
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:31 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Arcadium » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:56 pm UTC

Spoiler:
philip1201 wrote:[spoiler]
roochkeez wrote:IIRC, the singularity is the moment in time when computers become smarter than humans.


BAReFOOt wrote:[the singularity] is the point where humans supposedly can’t keep up with the technological progress anymore.


Max™ wrote:A singularity is a point beyond which predictions can not be made.


sab39 wrote:I thought [the singularity] was where the curve of human-assisted computers and the curve of computer-enhanced humans intersect so there's basically no effective distinction between a human and a computer any more.


rmsgrey wrote:Any virtual intelligence scheme I've encountered runs into a ceiling where the additional communications overhead from adding a person equals the capacity gain from adding them [and therefore the singularity is impossible].

[...]

Conclusion [of those who think the singularity will occur]: Super-exponential growth of computer capability will happen, and we'll all live in some unimaginable utopia.


RhodeKille wrote:All you have to do to justify the singularity happening is realize that we are now designing the next generation of computers using the previous one.


Lynx Cat wrote:I argue that artificial intelligence is actually entirely beside the point of a technological singularity, because the collective action of a large number of people working in a coordinated manner and with enough internal communication (something increasingly common nowadays) is enough to create e virtual intelligence that's much more capable than that of any individual involved, with no upper limit on its capacity as you scale up the system. [...] But yeah, the most common idea about the "cybersingularity" (gonna call it that from now on) is that technology accelerates beyond our idea to keep up with it because technology (as in artificial intelligence) itself may become capable of accelerating technology beyond our understanding.

[...]

Compare the world today to what it was 300 years ago, which is nothing in historical terms. The singularity already happened.


throwawategea wrote:The term "singularity" was used for a long time to refer to relatively sane ideas. Then Kurzweil made up his nonsensical bullshit, attached the "singularity" label to it, and then promoted it so heavily that he almost stole the term.


ikrase wrote:There is more than one idea of singularity. While people tend to assume that they will transcend all limits no matter how difficult, and assume that it will be within their lifetime, other types of singularities (esp those involving AI that does research on making better AI, and expanding and speeding up the AI-designing-and-building infrastructure) are not always stupid.


philip1201 wrote:
Spoiler:
ITT: Everybody has strong opinions about a word nobody has the same definition of.

Since it's probably useless to try and make one good definition of the singularity, let's all just drop that word from our vocabularies and talk about what we actually think is going to happen.

The human brain is made up of inefficient elements. The memory center is leaky, the sensory systems have to process and store things subconsciously because the conscious forebrain is too busy, neurons require dozens of different chemicals to operate - the brain is squishy, weak and flawed. A synthetic replica of a neuron can send the same information a hundred times faster, and take up a million times less space (100 times smaller in every direction), than the real thing. Einstein's brain is not larger than that of any other. The human brain can be formed with the right instructions, therefore an Einstein-level brain can be built at 10^-6 times the size of a human brain, and work 100 times faster. The senses can be simulated at a similar level of compactness, but let's drop an order of magnitude to be on the safe side.

This means that, at the lower limit, it is possible to store 10^5 Einstein-level intelligences, and simulate their communications on the level of detail of any modern video game, on a computer the size of a human brain, and that for every hundred seconds that passes in their virtual reality, only one passes in real reality. An entire scientific community in a single head.

And if you think it is impossible for these AI to surpass us into areas incomprehensible to regular humans, that would be as foolish as saying it's impossible for science to be incomprehensible to lay men. Assuming the field of research can be turned theoretical/digital without significant loss of rapidity of advancement, like AI research, then this single AI would take a year to be a century ahead of us in AI research. And the AI's components are human-identical, so if they can't improve upon AI, then neither can we, and if they can, they will continue until they reach the limits of physical capacity.

And this is all without any obvious increases of efficiency - switching from neurons to quantum computers, further reduction of size or acceleration of transmission of data, removal of unnecessary function, etc. All of these can improve the capacity of AI beyond 10^7 times human levels.

So, in question form:

Is it possible for AI to surpass humans? Yes.
Is it possible for AI to improve itself? Yes.
Is it possible for AI to experience exponential growth of intelligence? Yes, until it hits unknown physical limits, which are at least 10^7 times the limits of human group intelligence.
Is it possible for humans to experience exponential growth in group intelligence? Yes, until they hit unknown physical limits.
Is it possible for technology to become incomprehensible for humans? Yes. This has already happened for sufficiently broad subject areas.


Yes in an approximate sense. Currently we're still doing wafers, its easier heat management, so dense packing of cpu's/gpu's is still inefficient (though solvable). Also simulating neurons 1:1 is still very computationally expensive, such that we're only able to simulate cortices and parts of brains in smaller animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project).

That's assuming you don't bypass neurons, and create an approximate intelligence that would be much more suited for current computational hardware. If you did, you might see the numbers you quoted. Why be limited in the inelasticity of neuron links and pulsed signalling, when you can have a much more dynamic build, with direct signaling which also replicates locality effects? Why simulate things which may or may not actually have an impact on intelligence?

But that would only be speculation :wink:, we don't know what intelligence is ... right?

Osha
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:24 am UTC
Location: Boise, Idaho, USA

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Osha » Sat Jul 21, 2012 10:00 pm UTC

The worst I've ever messed up my computer was on a laptop running windows 2000. I had a small partition for windows, and a large ext2 or ext3 partition for linux. I installed a 3rd party driver so that I could access the ext partition with no problem (except for some weirdness with non-ascii filenames).

But then for some reason I thought it would be a good idea to move as much as possible onto the ext partition through copious use of regedit (and possibly junctions? I forget). This at least included my documents, but might have also included program files, or even parts of C:\windows.

This actually worked with no problem, until the day something broke and I had to boot into safe mode.

The problem here, safe mode didn't load the third party driver.

Windows didn't have access to essential system files.

Everything acted bizarre. Keypresses typed the wrong keys, there were weird errors all over the place, it was hilarious.

User avatar
Alsadius
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Alsadius » Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:02 am UTC

Wlerin wrote:
Alsadius wrote:As far as I can tell, it consists mostly of a million things that shouldn't go together getting piled into each other. ls is the basic list files command in Linux, share folders are usually used for network sharing, Adobe makes utility software, doc is most commonly associated with Microsoft Office, Android is a cellphone OS, root is supposed to be the base directory, .jar implies that it's a Java program, and calling it a device makes it seem like it's a periphreal. I don't know what sbin refers to, but it's enough of a devil's brew even without that - when you're remapping basic functions of your OS to Javascript files aping USB gadgets buried eight directories deep inthe weirdest[your standard linux] file tree I've ever seen, you have done something very bad to your computer.

All in all, it sounds almost as bad as the time my mom's computer forgot how to work an .exe file - let me tell you, that was a "fun" afternoon.

It's people like you that make things like this happen. :P


Gimmie a break, I'm a Windows user :P

(And "the weirdest file tree" referred to the combination of things that should not be combined - I'm aware that the formatting is standard Linux, but I would hope that the content is not)

DavidRoss
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:04 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby DavidRoss » Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:40 am UTC

ktdlmnop wrote:
asdfzxc wrote:Can somebody explain what's going on in the third panel?


Girl tried to use the command `ls` which is a common simple command to show the files in the current directory. Instead of launching the usual command, somehow the guy set it so that typing ls calls a Java Archive file that exists in a path that makes no sense and getting an unrelated (I assume) error. Basically the joke is that the guy screwed up the computer beyond being usable and he should just wait for the computer to become smarter than he is before trying to do anything else.


Excellent explanation. I read the strip several times trying to make sense of it, getting stuck on the significance of the mapping of `ls` knowing it was remapped - a not all that bright thing to do - but trying to find the joke in the particular mapping used. However, now that I read your explanation and go back to the strip, I can't figure out why it wasn't so apparent all along. At least I am not the only one.

DavidRoss
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:04 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby DavidRoss » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:01 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:Oh please. Only idiots believe in the “singularity”. Because:
If people start to not being able to keep up with technology, that obviously limits their ability to make it accelerate even faster.
So the acceleration will gradually flatten out at that point, meaning the speed of progress will become constant. It is naturally self-limiting.
Meaning a “singularity” can never happen.
Duh. This is blatantly obvious even to a child. Kurzweil is an idiot.

Until the machines become capable of improving themselves, at which point humans don't need to keep up with the progress in order for it to be possible. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is the whole point of the singularity.


I am already at the singularity. It seems I cannot buy some piece of technology, become familiar enough with it (definition: use at least 50% of its features and have a passing familiarity with a few others), and get it customized the way I like before the technology has moved on and my machine is obsolete.

It's possible that even if the acceleration slows, it can go faster than people (as a group) can keep up as individuals push their little domain forward. It would be like a crowd all running in one direction while passing a baton. The baton is only moved forward by people, but it can still travel forward faster than anyone in the crowd can.

DavidRoss
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:04 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby DavidRoss » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:09 am UTC

kkt wrote:Losing ls is no reason to panic. echo * makes a passable emergency substitute.


There is a reason to panic, because we're all here trying to fix a problem that was there for the purpose of humor. Yes, `echo *` will work. But you forget that echo has been remapped and all the commands that you would use to fix the filesystem are also remapped.

DavidRoss
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:04 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby DavidRoss » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:15 am UTC

rbos wrote:
endolith wrote:Yes, we know what Linux is. It's a cult centered around a shitty operating system.


Here's a nickel, kid. Go buy yourself a real computer.


No call to brush enolith off like that. The writer provides some detailed criticisms of Linux and some of those are well-argued. However, on my computer, everything after the first line was cut off so I don't really know what facts enolith listed in support of Linux being a shitty operating system or it being a cult.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Max™ » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:25 am UTC

DavidRoss wrote:
rbos wrote:
endolith wrote:Yes, we know what Linux is. It's a cult centered around a shitty operating system.


Here's a nickel, kid. Go buy yourself a real computer.


No call to brush enolith off like that. The writer provides some detailed criticisms of Linux and some of those are well-argued. However, on my computer, everything after the first line was cut off so I don't really know what facts enolith listed in support of Linux being a shitty operating system or it being a cult.

It's safe to say when the brunt of your argument centers around "I hate it and think it sucks", you're not concerned about facts or supporting your point.
mu

User avatar
Alsadius
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Alsadius » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:26 am UTC

DavidRoss wrote:
rbos wrote:
endolith wrote:Yes, we know what Linux is. It's a cult centered around a shitty operating system.


Here's a nickel, kid. Go buy yourself a real computer.


No call to brush enolith off like that. The writer provides some detailed criticisms of Linux and some of those are well-argued. However, on my computer, everything after the first line was cut off so I don't really know what facts enolith listed in support of Linux being a shitty operating system or it being a cult.


Come on, it's the Internet. Who needs evidence when you have loudly stated opinion?

Personally, I use Windows partially due to muscle memory, partially due to a very deep familiarity with the system that makes me more powerful within a Windows environment than I would be within a Linux environment(regardless of the theoretical power levels), partially due to habit and backwards-compatibility with my legacy files/programs, and partially due to a lot of the programs I use being Windows-only. I understand the Linux mindset, and I'm not really opposed to it, but it's simply inferior for what I want to do. As for the "cult" bit, depends on the Linux user - some people just prefer it, some people are Richard Stallman. Calling Stallman a cultist is pretty fair, I'd say, or at least as fair as calling any other famous subcultural leader who doesn't literally use brainwashing(Ayn Rand comes to mind) a cultist.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Kit. » Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:15 am UTC

Uristqwerty wrote:Googled: unix recovery story
First result: http://lug.wsu.edu/node/414

Is that the one you were thinking about?

That's what you get for running Unix on VAX.

If it were VMS, they would just boot from a backup tape and then restore the directories they lost.

(Actually, they wouldn't have made the mistake of deleting the directories in the first place)

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Max™ » Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:34 pm UTC

Alsadius wrote:I'd say, or at least as fair as calling any other famous subcultural leader who doesn't literally use brainwashing(Ayn Rand comes to mind) a cultist.

Ayn Rand isn't a cultist, she's a cuntist, very similar words, but the difference is important.
mu

User avatar
Alsadius
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Alsadius » Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:48 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:
Alsadius wrote:I'd say, or at least as fair as calling any other famous subcultural leader who doesn't literally use brainwashing(Ayn Rand comes to mind) a cultist.

Ayn Rand isn't a cultist, she's a cuntist, very similar words, but the difference is important.


No, because that would imply that she's pro-female, which she most definitely is not.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Max™ » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:01 pm UTC

Alsadius wrote:
Max™ wrote:
Alsadius wrote:I'd say, or at least as fair as calling any other famous subcultural leader who doesn't literally use brainwashing(Ayn Rand comes to mind) a cultist.

Ayn Rand isn't a cultist, she's a cuntist, very similar words, but the difference is important.


No, because that would imply that she's pro-female, which she most definitely is not.

I used cuntist as short for pro-"being an awful rotten cuntbag to everyone because she is one of the most hateful and shitty humans ever born, second only to Hitler", seriously, I hope she died a painful death, she deserved worse.
mu

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby styrofoam » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:27 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:Hitler


This discussion is now over.
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Max™ » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:55 pm UTC

What can I say, I find it difficult to imagine more despicable people than randroids.
mu

User avatar
Alsadius
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Alsadius » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:06 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:I used cuntist as short for pro-"being an awful rotten cuntbag to everyone because she is one of the most hateful and shitty humans ever born, second only to Hitler", seriously, I hope she died a painful death, she deserved worse.


You think that the second-worst human being ever to live is a widely mocked, generally ignored philosopher? Really? Not, say, Stalin or Idi Amin or Charles Manson? Rand said a lot of stupid things, sure. Mocking her for them is fair game(because seriously, that rape scene :shock: ). But I don't even find her to be as annoying as some of the people who mock her, never mind the actual monsters of the world.

Edit: I won't reply further here - I've taken it to PM.
Last edited by Alsadius on Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Max™ » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:17 pm UTC

Alsadius wrote:
Max™ wrote:I used cuntist as short for pro-"being an awful rotten cuntbag to everyone because she is one of the most hateful and shitty humans ever born, second only to Hitler", seriously, I hope she died a painful death, she deserved worse.


You think that the second-worst human being ever to live is a widely mocked, generally ignored philosopher? Really? Not, say, Stalin or Idi Amin or Charles Manson? Rand said a lot of stupid things, sure. Mocking her for them is fair game(because seriously, that rape scene :shock: ). But I don't even find her to be as annoying as some of the people who mock her, never mind the actual monsters of the world.

Actual psychopaths and insane monsters don't generally choose to push the most hateful and vile bullshit as philosophy, she did. Given that the current financial bullshit is from ideologies not too far divorced from randian hatefulness*, no, I don't think that giving power to a bitch like Rand would result in anything but atrocities.


*In fact I'm certain we'd be far worse off if we had shitbags who followed her closely running things openly.


Not the right thread for my admittedly extreme hatred of Rand's bullshit, pardon the derail.
mu

Oktalist
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:13 pm UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Oktalist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:48 pm UTC

DavidRoss wrote:
kkt wrote:Losing ls is no reason to panic. echo * makes a passable emergency substitute.


There is a reason to panic, because we're all here trying to fix a problem that was there for the purpose of humor. Yes, `echo *` will work. But you forget that echo has been remapped and all the commands that you would use to fix the filesystem are also remapped.


Just use absolute paths.

/bin/ls

This works until you somehow get /bin symlinked to /mnt/c/Program\ Files/cygwin/bin.
philip1201 wrote:Not everything which maps countable infinities onto finite areas is a Lovecraft reference.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby J Thomas » Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:23 am UTC

Max™ wrote:
Alsadius wrote:
Max™ wrote:I used cuntist as short for pro-"being an awful rotten cuntbag to everyone because she is one of the most hateful and shitty humans ever born, second only to Hitler", seriously, I hope she died a painful death, she deserved worse.


You think that the second-worst human being ever to live is a widely mocked, generally ignored philosopher? Really? Not, say, Stalin or Idi Amin or Charles Manson? Rand said a lot of stupid things, sure. Mocking her for them is fair game(because seriously, that rape scene :shock: ). But I don't even find her to be as annoying as some of the people who mock her, never mind the actual monsters of the world.

Actual psychopaths and insane monsters don't generally choose to push the most hateful and vile bullshit as philosophy, she did. Given that the current financial bullshit is from ideologies not too far divorced from randian hatefulness*, no, I don't think that giving power to a bitch like Rand would result in anything but atrocities.
I find this a rather amusing miscommunication. Clearly, you think that philosophy is important, and I expect Alsadius does not. People like Stalin presumably had free will and could have done things differently if they chose, it's just beyond belief that they might have accepted some philosophy without question that left them doing the things they did. And so you two see things so very differently....

*In fact I'm certain we'd be far worse off if we had shitbags who followed her closely running things openly.


Alan Greenspan was at one time rather central to Rand's clique. Later he ran the Federal Reserve. In theory, the Fed is supposed to sometimes do unpopular things that need to be done. When the economy doesn't need more money sloshing around the Fed "takes away the punchbowl" and shows things down. Then everybody gets mad at the Fed chairman, but they can't do anything about it. The party's over and they have to get to work.

When the US economy had rough times under Greenspan, he gave us stern lectures. "You have got to solve these problems, it's absolutely vital that you stop wasting time and fix things up. Now, would you like more punch?" Everybody said he was a genius. He gave us lots of good times. Then finally we were heading for a crisis that looked like Greenspan could not fix it by refilling the punch bowl. What did he do instead? He retired.

Sometimes I wonder how he felt about the Fed compared to his Randite roots. Perhaps he thought of himself like in Atlas Shrugged? He was helping to destroy the system so a better system could be built on the ruins? Various people talked that way during the Reagan administration. They said that government was wasteful and we needed to stop it, so they would spend government money as wastefully as they could so we would be forced to stop. They got the best of both worlds -- they could give money to their friends while denying it to others, and at the same time they could say they were doing graft and corruption for a good cause. Not like the evil politicians who spent money because they wanted people to vote for them. They were doing government waste to end government waste, kind of like a war to end wars.

Or maybe Greenspan considered his Randite days a youthful indiscretion that he outgrew and his years at the Fed involved dealing with reality.

Perhaps after Greenspan dies his memoirs will be published. They would likely be fascinating.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Lynx Cat
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:10 pm UTC
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Contact:

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Lynx Cat » Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:31 pm UTC

oookay... I'll try to squeeze something in before this thread becomes yet another flame-war centered on Ayn Rand.

Max™ wrote:I don't do strong opinions, in my opinion opinions aren't worth much.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Singularity.html

In general, a singularity is a point at which an equation, surface, etc., blows up or becomes degenerate. Singularities are often also called singular points.


Kurzweil is a cunt for pushing the term like that, as are singulitarian church members. Technorapture my ass.


That's certainly something I agree with, and which IMO is a symptom of what's wrong with how many people deal with this whole idea. The choice of the word "singularity" implicates, as said above, a point of convergence - in practical terms, as far as the cybersingularity is concerned, a magical day when the world will change overnight and we'll be suddenly transported into a fantastical sci-fi world where everything around us is the internet or something, computer savvy suddenly becomes the most valued thing in the whole world, and robots fulfill your every desires no matter how impossible, like Arabian Nights genies. In other words, a wish-fulfillment fantasy. Rapture of the Nerds, as so many have called it.

Myself, I'm highly skeptical of all egocentric fantasies out of principle, but I think the core idea does have some merit, even if wishful thinking distorted it into something silly. The whole rapidly accelerating pace of technological advancement is an undeniable reality (I'm not going to say "exponential" because that's more math being co-opted completely out of context to make the rhetoric sound more impressive), with no reason to believe it will decelerate or even stop increasing the pace at least within a few years, and I think the idea of "technology getting beyond the comprehension of human beings" is pretty well-established by now too. (Getting out of control is another thing, and arguable, but I wouldn't just dismiss its reality even now.) So the more or less general idea of "technology advancing at a rapidly accelerating pace and running beyond our ability to keep up with it" is not only possible, but already a reality.

The only point of contention then is setting both dates and upper bounds on this advancement. I'd argue that estimating a "Singularity Day", or even year, is nonsensical because the "singularity" isn't an event, but rather a process. (Which negates the choice of the word "singularity", but we've already established it's shaky at best.) It's hard to say when the process began (I'd say the Industrial Revolution, but that's of course highly arguable), and even harder to say when will it end, or how far it will get by then. I certainly wouldn't rule out AIs much more advanced than human brains in pretty much every aspect, radical improvements on our bodies and minds (transhumanism), and many other goodies that people fantasize about - but setting a date for those discoveries is mostly baseless speculation, and I certainly wouldn't place them just around the corner. One thing is true, though - we're already way into the process of "singularity" (for want of a better name). If it looks disappointing, I'd first tell you that you're underestimating what you already have (as I said, look back to the pre-Industrial-Revolution world), and secondly that it will always be disappointing, not only because the process, although fast, is still gradual rather than a magical Rapture Day, but also because what people really expect is wish-fulfillment, and the world just isn't made for that.
LIVE FOREVER OR DIE TRYING

jpers36
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby jpers36 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:57 pm UTC

I like you, Max™, but I gotta do this :P .

Max™ wrote:I don't do strong opinions, in my opinion opinions aren't worth much.



Max™ wrote:I used cuntist as short for pro-"being an awful rotten cuntbag to everyone because she is one of the most hateful and shitty humans ever born, second only to Hitler", seriously, I hope she died a painful death, she deserved worse.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Max™ » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:24 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:I like you, Max™, but I gotta do this :P .

Max™ wrote:I don't do strong opinions, in my opinion opinions aren't worth much.



Max™ wrote:I used cuntist as short for pro-"being an awful rotten cuntbag to everyone because she is one of the most hateful and shitty humans ever born, second only to Hitler", seriously, I hope she died a painful death, she deserved worse.

:P

That's not an opinion though, but like I said, it's a derail.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, all were objectivist heroes in a sense, shining examples of what an amazingly shitty yeastbag Rand was for espousing such ideologies. "Fuck everyone, I'm in it for me" leads to atrocities the likes of which the world has never seen. While they weren't necessarily inspired by her, many people in power in the US over the last 30 years have been, and are to some extent or another responsible for the shitpile we're sitting in.

A world ruled by ideologies like hers is a brutish and hateful place, and the only people who can be excused for being fans of hers are stupid fucking teenagers who don't realize how horrifyingly evil objectivism really is.
mu

JoeyJo0
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby JoeyJo0 » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:42 pm UTC

Alsadius wrote:As far as I can tell, it consists mostly of a million things that shouldn't go together getting piled into each other. ls is the basic list files command in Linux, share folders are usually used for network sharing, Adobe makes utility software, doc is most commonly associated with Microsoft Office, Android is a cellphone OS, root is supposed to be the base directory, .jar implies that it's a Java program, and calling it a device makes it seem like it's a periphreal. I don't know what sbin refers to, but it's enough of a devil's brew even without that - when you're remapping basic functions of your OS to Javascript files aping USB gadgets buried eight directories deep in the weirdest file tree I've ever seen, you have done something very bad to your computer.

All in all, it sounds almost as bad as the time my mom's computer forgot how to work an .exe file - let me tell you, that was a "fun" afternoon.


I'm curious? Sporkeh?

Because I had that once.
Ell (to Hintss) wrote:No, you can't see who has foed you. Be glad, because the list would probably be long enough to give you carpal tunnel if you tried to scroll through it.

User avatar
Alsadius
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Alsadius » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:13 am UTC

JoeyJo0 wrote:
Alsadius wrote:All in all, it sounds almost as bad as the time my mom's computer forgot how to work an .exe file - let me tell you, that was a "fun" afternoon.


I'm curious? Sporkeh?

Because I had that once.


To the best of my ability to determine, it was actually Norton Antivirus that did it.

To forestall the inevitable followup: it's been many years, and I can't remember the exact reasoning for that inference.

tikiking1
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:50 pm UTC

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby tikiking1 » Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:55 pm UTC

Reminds me of the time my incompetent brother chroot-ed my root account's bash to /media...

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1084: "Server Problem"

Postby Max™ » Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:47 am UTC

tikiking1 wrote:Reminds me of the time my incompetent brother chroot-ed my root account's bash to /media...

Incompetent like a fox, assuming he was trying to mess with you, but yeah, computer literacy is amazingly poor even these days.

My monitor died so I asked where the old CRT from the long dead G4 system they had was, I thought it was in the storage room, after finding only the G4 case in there I asked, and was told "no, it's in there" by the mother-in-law, who then led me upstairs and pointed to the case. "It's right there"... not quite as bad as managing to make root point to a media directory, but she doesn't mess with moving files either.

I do remember when I migrated her from explorer to firefox, she couldn't find her bookmarks which I knew I imported. I was baffled until I found she had one of those "suggested sites" links, which contained a "bookmarks" link, which contained an "unsorted bookmarks" link, which had her main bookmarks folder inside it labeled "recipes"... I dunno.
mu


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Moose Anus and 113 guests