On the other hand, accreditation is no protection against potential employers looking at your resume, noting that you got your degree from an online diploma mill, and deciding you're probably not worth interviewing on that basis alone. It's an old joke that BS means "bullshit", but this sort of thing makes it less of a joke.
The person that I replied to seemed to think that the issue had to do with the ability to modify the license under which you received a document. Quite correctly, he pointed out that this would be absurd. However, that is not the issue, which is why I said he didn't understand.
I agree with you that the FSF is being hypocritical.
And what's more, you have to build everything yourself from source! Just think, only three days of heavy CPU and disk usage for each major KDE upgrade!
How about a threshold of invariant content like, say, 0%? Any invariant content at all makes the documentation less than fully free-as-in-liberty.
In good Slashdot tradition, I have not read the debian-legal thread referenced by the story, so I don't know if they have considered a policy that GFDL-licensed documentation is DFSG-free as long as it has no invariant sections. Surely someone must have thought of that already, so maybe there were good reasons against that.
Either you're trolling, or you don't understand the issue. Of course you can't change the license; that would make no sense. The issue has to do with the fact that the GFDL allows portions of the licensed document to be marked "invariant", meaning you can't change those parts. This is logically equivalent to what you would have if the GPL allowed authors to mark parts of their source code as unmodifiable. It essentially means that the document is not entirely free, but only mostly free. The debate within Debian has been about whether "mostly free" is good enough.
You obviously don't understand what the Debian project is all about. It isn't just a Linux distro; it is specifically a free software distro. They don't want anything that isn't free-as-in-liberty. That's why they have the licensing rules that they do.
You obviously haven't read SCO's complaint. It makes no sense. It lacks specifics and is full of vague handwaving. It even gets simple historical facts wrong. It's truly pathetic.
You don't give a specific URL, and the only thing about spam on Joel's front page currently is a rant about SpamCop blacklisting the server that hosts his "Joel on Software" mailing list. So it's hard to evaluate your claim that Joel "proved" something about Bayesian spam filters. Given Joel's habit of making big pronouncements and supporting them with hand-waving, I tend to doubt that he proved anything.
In practice, I find that bogofilter (a Bayesian spam filter) works better and requires less maintenance than SpamAssassin, which, in turn, is better than any of the anti-spam tools I had used previously (such as SpamBouncer, which I found almost useless).
I don't quite agree that MOV is clearer than XOR or SUB. First off, if you understand basic arithmetic and Boolean logic, it's blindingly obvious that xor'ing a register with itself, or subtracting it from itself, will result in setting the register to zero. But perhaps more importantly, the notion of "clarity" (and, related but not identical, "elegance") is dependent on the culture of programmers using the language in question, and what is considered "normal" in that culture. Every C/C++/Java programmer, for example, often writes infinite loops with "for (;;)" even though "while (TRUE)" is arguably "clearer". Similarly, "i=i+1" is arguably "clearer" than "++i". And then there's the ?: operator, +=, typecasts, pointer aliasing in C/C++ (not Java, obviously)... you see what I mean. These things are considered normal by programmers who are experienced in working in these languages, even though they may not seem at all obvious or straightforward to someone who's spent his whole career working in, say, Pascal or ADA. By the same token, clearing a register with xor or sub is an extremely common idiom in assembly language (particularly, but not only, on the Intel chips). It is the normal way to do it, and nothing can be more clear than to do something in the normal way that everyone familiar with the language would expect you to do it.
You're kidding. When did Peter Noone (lead singer of Herman's Hermits) start designing video games?
Or maybe you meant "no one" but don't have a strong enough grasp of English to know how to write it?
Lots of blood, babes with big tits wearing skimpy leather outfits, and lot of stuff stolen from Tolkien. Just the thing for the adolescent male with no imagination and even less knowledge of world literature.
Starting with Quicken 97, and continuing at least through Quicken 99 (don't know about anything newer than that), Quicken included software by Inverse Network Technology (later purchased by Visual Networks, NASDAQ:VNWK) for QOS reportage on dial-up and website connections. This product was originally called AccessWizard, then AccessRamp, and is still being marketed by Visual Networks today as Visual IP InSight. This is what the Intuit guy was talking about.
I have a modern reprint of the Domesday Book which I can open to any page I want. Picked it up at Barnes & Noble a few years ago for, if I recall correctly, $9.95. No access problems there. And I would guess that the creation of the reprint didn't require any elaborate technology either -- just photograph each page. Now, of course, the museum won't let just anyone do that, but if you're a scholar or publisher with a real purpose in doing so, and enough credibility that the curators won't think you're a vandal, then it probably can be arranged.
I also use maradns and am generally quite happy with it. However, there is one minor annoyance that seems to be an acknowledged property of the current design: maradns doesn't work terribly well as both a recursive and authoritative server at the same time. The most obvious example I've found of this causing a problem is in the resolution of CNAME records. I have a local CNAME that maps to a name in another domain. What I expect to happen (and what would happen with BIND) is that if I try to resolve the local name, the DNS server should realize that it has to make a recursive request to the authoritative server for the other domain. But maradns doesn't do that (or at least, it didn't the last time I tried it, which was a few months ago).
Good point -- aside from a few rather toothless, generic comments at the end about the book "flowing well", this "review" makes no analysis or judgment at all. It's really more of a spoiler than a review (well, aside from the fact that you can't spoil rotten garbage).
Cute troll. I like the touch of claiming that Dune (1965) stole from Star Wars (1977). Of course, this is science fiction we're talking about, so perhaps a time machine was involved, and George Lucas is really Frank Herbert's father...
This must be based on some definition of "acclaimed" that I'm not familiar with. Kevin J. Anderson is a hack who mostly writes TV novelizations (X-Files, etc.) or helps people polish books they aren't capable of writing on their own (as in this case). Who has "acclaimed" him? For what? Has he won any awards, been the guest of honor at a convention... anything?
As for the Dune books, only the first two were ever worth anything. Frank Herbert himself couldn't keep the series going at a high level of quality, and his son's work qualifies as nothing more than shameless exploitation of a franchise.
Re:or join the God existence proof seekers
on
ECCp-109 Solved
·
· Score: 1
Just write "God, if you can see this, please show yourself!" in a large font on your screen using the blink-tag.
No, no, no. Write it on your screen with a thick Magic Marker.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, accreditation is no protection against potential employers looking at your resume, noting that you got your degree from an online diploma mill, and deciding you're probably not worth interviewing on that basis alone. It's an old joke that BS means "bullshit", but this sort of thing makes it less of a joke.
Another minus for MD is that it is a Java application, so it will run *slowly* on any platform.
I agree with you that the FSF is being hypocritical.
No, I was talking about Gentoo, not Debian. Note the posting I was responding to.
Yes, it's interesting how the Debian project is turning out to be more pro-freedom than even the FSF.
And what's more, you have to build everything yourself from source! Just think, only three days of heavy CPU and disk usage for each major KDE upgrade!
In good Slashdot tradition, I have not read the debian-legal thread referenced by the story, so I don't know if they have considered a policy that GFDL-licensed documentation is DFSG-free as long as it has no invariant sections. Surely someone must have thought of that already, so maybe there were good reasons against that.
Either you're trolling, or you don't understand the issue. Of course you can't change the license; that would make no sense. The issue has to do with the fact that the GFDL allows portions of the licensed document to be marked "invariant", meaning you can't change those parts. This is logically equivalent to what you would have if the GPL allowed authors to mark parts of their source code as unmodifiable. It essentially means that the document is not entirely free, but only mostly free. The debate within Debian has been about whether "mostly free" is good enough.
You obviously don't understand what the Debian project is all about. It isn't just a Linux distro; it is specifically a free software distro. They don't want anything that isn't free-as-in-liberty. That's why they have the licensing rules that they do.
You obviously haven't read SCO's complaint. It makes no sense. It lacks specifics and is full of vague handwaving. It even gets simple historical facts wrong. It's truly pathetic.
No, using quotes indicates that I was quoting directly from the story, you idiot.
If Red Hat's decision had been "obviously right", it wouldn't have been "controversial".
In practice, I find that bogofilter (a Bayesian spam filter) works better and requires less maintenance than SpamAssassin, which, in turn, is better than any of the anti-spam tools I had used previously (such as SpamBouncer, which I found almost useless).
I don't quite agree that MOV is clearer than XOR or SUB. First off, if you understand basic arithmetic and Boolean logic, it's blindingly obvious that xor'ing a register with itself, or subtracting it from itself, will result in setting the register to zero. But perhaps more importantly, the notion of "clarity" (and, related but not identical, "elegance") is dependent on the culture of programmers using the language in question, and what is considered "normal" in that culture. Every C/C++/Java programmer, for example, often writes infinite loops with "for (;;)" even though "while (TRUE)" is arguably "clearer". Similarly, "i=i+1" is arguably "clearer" than "++i". And then there's the ?: operator, +=, typecasts, pointer aliasing in C/C++ (not Java, obviously)... you see what I mean. These things are considered normal by programmers who are experienced in working in these languages, even though they may not seem at all obvious or straightforward to someone who's spent his whole career working in, say, Pascal or ADA. By the same token, clearing a register with xor or sub is an extremely common idiom in assembly language (particularly, but not only, on the Intel chips). It is the normal way to do it, and nothing can be more clear than to do something in the normal way that everyone familiar with the language would expect you to do it.
The Slashdot effect wasn't eligible because it came in #1 last year. Look it up.
You're kidding. When did Peter Noone (lead singer of Herman's Hermits) start designing video games? Or maybe you meant "no one" but don't have a strong enough grasp of English to know how to write it?
Lots of blood, babes with big tits wearing skimpy leather outfits, and lot of stuff stolen from Tolkien. Just the thing for the adolescent male with no imagination and even less knowledge of world literature.
Starting with Quicken 97, and continuing at least through Quicken 99 (don't know about anything newer than that), Quicken included software by Inverse Network Technology (later purchased by Visual Networks, NASDAQ:VNWK) for QOS reportage on dial-up and website connections. This product was originally called AccessWizard, then AccessRamp, and is still being marketed by Visual Networks today as Visual IP InSight. This is what the Intuit guy was talking about.
I have a modern reprint of the Domesday Book which I can open to any page I want. Picked it up at Barnes & Noble a few years ago for, if I recall correctly, $9.95. No access problems there. And I would guess that the creation of the reprint didn't require any elaborate technology either -- just photograph each page. Now, of course, the museum won't let just anyone do that, but if you're a scholar or publisher with a real purpose in doing so, and enough credibility that the curators won't think you're a vandal, then it probably can be arranged.
I also use maradns and am generally quite happy with it. However, there is one minor annoyance that seems to be an acknowledged property of the current design: maradns doesn't work terribly well as both a recursive and authoritative server at the same time. The most obvious example I've found of this causing a problem is in the resolution of CNAME records. I have a local CNAME that maps to a name in another domain. What I expect to happen (and what would happen with BIND) is that if I try to resolve the local name, the DNS server should realize that it has to make a recursive request to the authoritative server for the other domain. But maradns doesn't do that (or at least, it didn't the last time I tried it, which was a few months ago).
Good point -- aside from a few rather toothless, generic comments at the end about the book "flowing well", this "review" makes no analysis or judgment at all. It's really more of a spoiler than a review (well, aside from the fact that you can't spoil rotten garbage).
Cute troll. I like the touch of claiming that Dune (1965) stole from Star Wars (1977). Of course, this is science fiction we're talking about, so perhaps a time machine was involved, and George Lucas is really Frank Herbert's father...
As for the Dune books, only the first two were ever worth anything. Frank Herbert himself couldn't keep the series going at a high level of quality, and his son's work qualifies as nothing more than shameless exploitation of a franchise.