Did you read the parent post I was responding to? Clearly not... and btw the windoze box could easily handle VMWare + updates + photoshop + 20 terminals + cygwin + XFree86 + any ancient game like DiabloII + SoundForge + Vegas with 20 tracks of audio. With ONE processor.
Since you obviously missed the point at the end, Linux still kicks ass over all of the above. Stick that in your SuperDrive and smoke it.
Indeed... last night I was able to do a massive Windows 2k Update while simultaneously upgrading my DSL router firmware, and could still read news and play games to pass the time...
My experience with mac has always been if you do more than one thing at a time you're asking for it. Not having used OS 10.x, I was hoping to hear that multitasking would have improved, as I'd love to ditch Windoze.
Nothing, however, beats my work Debian woody dual 2GHz for speed performance and stability. I wanted to get an ibook but maybe I'll just get a Zaurus...
Re:Refactoring does not depend on Eclipse: Emacs!
on
Eclipse 2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
It's all possible in [x]emacs... i've thrown together something that constantly completes java code as I type by inspecting import statements, doing reflection...
JDE for emacs does some of this though not as thoroughly. To get what I wanted I had to code lisp for days tho...
the point being -- ANYTHING is possible in emacs, in fact I'm a bit mystified why the IDE tools aren't better already.
I think Evolution has a stronger selling point: it demonstrates a superior desktop experience on Linux. Sure, having it on windows would get my CEO to switch, but I'd rather encourage switching the whole OS.
Meanwhile, with regard to it's development, I hate to say it but the insanely fast indexing Evo does would, in my opinion, suffer in java. I'm a java developer and love the language, but for some things it's too damn slow.
For my part, I wish Evolution wasn't so tightly bound with Gnome; AND I wish they would implement a console-based interface (a la mutt). Neither of those things seem to fit their marketing approach, unfortunately.
If questioning the relevance of guns to a debate on violence insults the intelligence, so does your insistence that "range" and "speed" are significant features of real-life violence. Video games, perhaps.
The vast majority of homicides are NOT the Dylan Klebolds wiping out multiple hapless innocents, but mutually-involved parties wasting each other over passion, business, a bunch of drinks. Quick, messy, irrevocable, guns or no. In these cases, yes a gun is effective, but also loud, often uneccessary, and puts yourself in danger if you lose control of it.
how can we who have arisen from randomness have any hope that the logic, reason, and thought processes we have exist with any semblance of order at all?
We can't. In fact, there's no reason to even want it, unless as a balm for fear of death. That's not to say there's no order -- merely that there is no way to definitively establish it through thought.
If that's the case, how can we have any faith in the conclusions we draw from that kind of reasoning?
Again - we can't. Faith isn't very useful anyway. Honest engagement with problems requires a recognition of the provisionality of the problem and the solution. Death is not a problem - it just is. Notice how we haven't fixed that one.
I prefer to believe that there is a measure of order that is objective.
Aren't you contradicting yourself? You can't "believe" in objectivity. It's there or it's not.
The problem is not faith, but hubris. We can't understand the world, because then we would be God(s). Faith should imply acceptance of the grand mystery -- not assurance that the world is neat and orderly. Wouldn't be "faith" then, would it?
And finally, there is the underlying conviction that, if you define both science and religion from their true centers, they cannot be in confict.
Science as we know it is fundamentally based on Christianity. Just as science is founded on an optimism that we can consciously know the world through reason, christianity is founded on an optimism that we can consciously know God through Christ.
Both very useful philosophies, one for knowledge and technology, one for morality and ontology. Both extremely dangerous in the hubris they inspire, in the ego-centric bias they inscribe.
Sorry to butcher Nietsche like this, but someone had to say it. Can't we move beyond this "prime-mover" crap? There is no will in the universe, it just is. Scary but true.
... in Martin Fowlers classic 'Refactoring', which uses only Java code examples.
Java and XP are a natural combination anyway, since a lot of the emphasis of XP is to fixing crappy code. Since lots of Java code is written by your standard junior-to-mid-level Java programmer (usually an ex-VB or ex-ASP flunkie), it usually needs a lot of re-writing (oops, "refactoring"!).
That being said, I don't see how a build tool is related to a programming methodology. Is it because it has a fairly standard JUnit task? You could easily get make to do that.
Besides, reading a book now about Ant is foolish, because (hope, hope) Ant 2 will be available soon, which hopefully fixes Ant's more egregious kludges and bugs.
Does anyone have an update on the EULA for the NWN toolset? Last I saw, Bioware still owns anything and everything you make with the toolset, but they said their legal team was "reviewing" it.
If it's released with the same bad license, I don't think we'll be seeing any quality mods being made for NWN, which would be a shame.
I still don't understand why browsers don't offer more domain-specific customization.
Pop ups are a good example. For certain sites I need all of the javascript and pop-ups to work: online banking, or retail catalog sites where the only blowups available for a picture are in pop-up screens.
But for ANY other sites I want it all turned off. No browser offers this, yet I imagine it would be easy to implement.
Looking for this I've tried Moz, Opera, Konq (not Galeon cuz too many dependencies). The first to implement this gets my vote.
I hate spam, but I also hate pop-up windows (esp. with X10 advertisements) and intrusive flash ads.
But, at least for the pop-ups, they've been found to be more effective than banners, and the more obnoxious the better.
I hate them, and my big peeve with browsers these days is that I can't target certain domains for shutting off pop-ups (it's either on or off globally for most - IE, Moz, Opera).
But I'm sure most people tolerate them, and some must actually respond. The same is most likely true of spam.
I think Taco's point is valid (and actually applies as well to the tempest-in-a-teapot about/. editor moderating, too), in that SourceForge, the site, is a *service*.
Hosting, connections, dba-ing, these are all ongoing activities that require lots of time and money. Your arguments about the nature of scarcity capitalism will not address the high cost of running such a service. "You get what you pay for" is a euphemism, not evidence of imperialist brainwashing.
His point: you don't like it, don't use it. Which raises another question: is SourceForge still free software? Can anybody still set up a site with the latest version? Or did that change? I can't remember...
Best,
Stuart
Re:Hero worship & makeover
on
A Beautiful Mind
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Plenty of biographers get mushy (or starry-eyed, or sexually aroused) over their subjects. Do you really think it's possible to spend such an inordinate amount of time writing/researching one person and stay objective?
When writing about another human, objectivity is as false of a stance as any other... ultimately a biographer is a narrator, so their personality, feelings, beliefs do a lot to make or break the work. I wouldn't trust someone who claims complete objectivity.
Your analogy about getting too much change from the cashier is off, as is the watch-in-the-car analogy. In both, someone has made an innocent mistake that if you were to take advantage of it, you'd be stealing (or some equivalent sin).
In Apple's case, there is no evidence that including the entire OS is a mistake. For all we know they might have had good reasons to distribute the upgrade this way.
Therefore, it is not "very, very simple," at least by your specious analogies. You cannot prove that Apple did not want you to have the entire OS on a CD simply because the words "Upgrade" are on the packaging. You're welcome to try, however.
Truly, the debate is more along the lines of intellectual property, if that can really be applied to practice: by removing the check file, the user is executing the install differently then Apple intended. Relevant analogies could be constructed from some other activity during an install.
You may consider all this merely a "clever" argument (i don't, i'm not very good at it). But your own arguments need to be a bit more "clever" to not sound like a close-minded moralist. I could debate the various DMCA-esque issues surrounding this with you but it would be a waste of time if you've decided in advance that your argument is correct and doesn't need justification.
Bush and USA Inc. went to war to protect the credit of Kuwaiti petrodollars, as well as to bitch-slap our lackey (Saddam) for getting too uppity with US-made arms.
It's always interesting to read a self-righteous, insulting comment that is nonetheless complete BS.
Yes, but realize you are using a very OO-biased example that gets used constantly (and is explicitly addressed by the author).
I do lots of OO programming and generally enjoy it's features, but it's easy to poke holes in your example.
For instance, what if EVERY shape needs a similar change in how it's drawn? You'll have to go modify a bunch of files. Whereas in a switch statement, it's all in one place: much easier.
They described (with pictures) how this Minesweeper thing works, something about OR gates... possible and impossible configurations... much more informative than boston.com's article. However, I don't have the magazine...
The exact wording from the cybercrime document is:
Title 3 - Content-related offences
Article 9 - Offences related to child pornography
1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law when committed without right and intentionally the following conduct:
a. offering or making available child pornography through a computer system;
b. distributing or transmitting child pornography through a computer system;
c. producing child pornography for the purpose of its distribution through a computer system;
d. possessing child pornography in a computer system or on a computer-data storage medium.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1 above "child pornography" shall include pornographic material that visually depicts:
a. a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct;
b. a person appearing to be a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct;
c. realistic images representing a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct.
3. For the purpose of paragraph 2 above, the term "minor" shall include all persons under 18 years of age. A Party may, however, require a lower age-limit, which shall be not less than 16 years.
The creation and use of acronyms to express colloquialisms specific to discussions in so-called "chat rooms", "message boards", "newsgroups" and "Slashdot forums" in order to succinctly express complex thoughts. For example, the process is used to communicate the phrase "I Am Not A Non-Sesquipedalian" in the far more succinct acronym, "IANANSQPD".
So corporations don't have rights? Even though a corporation is just a group of people?
Your tone is as though this is a rhetorical question. But the answer is not assured, nor are its implications self-evident.
Corporations have great value to their prinicipals, by sheilding them from individual liability for the corporation's actions. Corporations can (and do) commit felonies but their principals never go to jail.
So exactly why should a corporation itself have rights? Rights pertain to a liberal notion that human beings have inalienable rights. A corporation is a thing, a sheild, an entity. It shouldn't have any more rights than my car.
Having said that, corporations do have rights. Shows you the kind of influence corporate interests have had and continue to have over the legislative process...
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read the parent post I was responding to? Clearly not ... and btw the windoze box could easily handle VMWare + updates + photoshop + 20 terminals + cygwin + XFree86 + any ancient game like DiabloII + SoundForge + Vegas with 20 tracks of audio. With ONE processor.
Since you obviously missed the point at the end, Linux still kicks ass over all of the above. Stick that in your SuperDrive and smoke it.
Indeed ... last night I was able to do a massive Windows 2k Update while simultaneously upgrading my DSL router firmware, and could still read news and play games to pass the time ...
...
My experience with mac has always been if you do more than one thing at a time you're asking for it. Not having used OS 10.x, I was hoping to hear that multitasking would have improved, as I'd love to ditch Windoze.
Nothing, however, beats my work Debian woody dual 2GHz for speed performance and stability. I wanted to get an ibook but maybe I'll just get a Zaurus
It's all possible in [x]emacs... i've thrown together something that constantly completes java code as I type by inspecting import statements, doing reflection ...
...
JDE for emacs does some of this though not as thoroughly. To get what I wanted I had to code lisp for days tho
the point being -- ANYTHING is possible in emacs, in fact I'm a bit mystified why the IDE tools aren't better already.
I think Evolution has a stronger selling point: it demonstrates a superior desktop experience on Linux. Sure, having it on windows would get my CEO to switch, but I'd rather encourage switching the whole OS.
Meanwhile, with regard to it's development, I hate to say it but the insanely fast indexing Evo does would, in my opinion, suffer in java. I'm a java developer and love the language, but for some things it's too damn slow.
For my part, I wish Evolution wasn't so tightly bound with Gnome; AND I wish they would implement a console-based interface (a la mutt). Neither of those things seem to fit their marketing approach, unfortunately.
The vast majority of homicides are NOT the Dylan Klebolds wiping out multiple hapless innocents, but mutually-involved parties wasting each other over passion, business, a bunch of drinks. Quick, messy, irrevocable, guns or no. In these cases, yes a gun is effective, but also loud, often uneccessary, and puts yourself in danger if you lose control of it.
We can't. In fact, there's no reason to even want it, unless as a balm for fear of death. That's not to say there's no order -- merely that there is no way to definitively establish it through thought.
If that's the case, how can we have any faith in the conclusions we draw from that kind of reasoning?
Again - we can't. Faith isn't very useful anyway. Honest engagement with problems requires a recognition of the provisionality of the problem and the solution. Death is not a problem - it just is. Notice how we haven't fixed that one.
I prefer to believe that there is a measure of order that is objective.
Aren't you contradicting yourself? You can't "believe" in objectivity. It's there or it's not.
The problem is not faith, but hubris. We can't understand the world, because then we would be God(s). Faith should imply acceptance of the grand mystery -- not assurance that the world is neat and orderly. Wouldn't be "faith" then, would it?
Science as we know it is fundamentally based on Christianity. Just as science is founded on an optimism that we can consciously know the world through reason, christianity is founded on an optimism that we can consciously know God through Christ.
Both very useful philosophies, one for knowledge and technology, one for morality and ontology. Both extremely dangerous in the hubris they inspire, in the ego-centric bias they inscribe.
Sorry to butcher Nietsche like this, but someone had to say it. Can't we move beyond this "prime-mover" crap? There is no will in the universe, it just is. Scary but true.
Java and XP are a natural combination anyway, since a lot of the emphasis of XP is to fixing crappy code. Since lots of Java code is written by your standard junior-to-mid-level Java programmer (usually an ex-VB or ex-ASP flunkie), it usually needs a lot of re-writing (oops, "refactoring"!).
That being said, I don't see how a build tool is related to a programming methodology. Is it because it has a fairly standard JUnit task? You could easily get make to do that.
Besides, reading a book now about Ant is foolish, because (hope, hope) Ant 2 will be available soon, which hopefully fixes Ant's more egregious kludges and bugs.
If it's released with the same bad license, I don't think we'll be seeing any quality mods being made for NWN, which would be a shame.
I still don't understand why browsers don't offer more domain-specific customization.
Pop ups are a good example. For certain sites I need all of the javascript and pop-ups to work: online banking, or retail catalog sites where the only blowups available for a picture are in pop-up screens.
But for ANY other sites I want it all turned off. No browser offers this, yet I imagine it would be easy to implement.
Looking for this I've tried Moz, Opera, Konq (not Galeon cuz too many dependencies). The first to implement this gets my vote.
Stuart
yeah, unfortunately my bank (citibank) does.
I hate spam, but I also hate pop-up windows (esp. with X10 advertisements) and intrusive flash ads.
But, at least for the pop-ups, they've been found to be more effective than banners, and the more obnoxious the better.
I hate them, and my big peeve with browsers these days is that I can't target certain domains for shutting off pop-ups (it's either on or off globally for most - IE, Moz, Opera).
But I'm sure most people tolerate them, and some must actually respond. The same is most likely true of spam.
Best,
Stuart
I think Taco's point is valid (and actually applies as well to the tempest-in-a-teapot about /. editor moderating, too), in that SourceForge, the site, is a *service*.
...
Hosting, connections, dba-ing, these are all ongoing activities that require lots of time and money. Your arguments about the nature of scarcity capitalism will not address the high cost of running such a service. "You get what you pay for" is a euphemism, not evidence of imperialist brainwashing.
His point: you don't like it, don't use it. Which raises another question: is SourceForge still free software? Can anybody still set up a site with the latest version? Or did that change? I can't remember
Best,
Stuart
Plenty of biographers get mushy (or starry-eyed, or sexually aroused) over their subjects. Do you really think it's possible to spend such an inordinate amount of time writing/researching one person and stay objective?
... ultimately a biographer is a narrator, so their personality, feelings, beliefs do a lot to make or break the work. I wouldn't trust someone who claims complete objectivity.
When writing about another human, objectivity is as false of a stance as any other
In Apple's case, there is no evidence that including the entire OS is a mistake. For all we know they might have had good reasons to distribute the upgrade this way.
Therefore, it is not "very, very simple," at least by your specious analogies. You cannot prove that Apple did not want you to have the entire OS on a CD simply because the words "Upgrade" are on the packaging. You're welcome to try, however.
Truly, the debate is more along the lines of intellectual property, if that can really be applied to practice: by removing the check file, the user is executing the install differently then Apple intended. Relevant analogies could be constructed from some other activity during an install.
You may consider all this merely a "clever" argument (i don't, i'm not very good at it). But your own arguments need to be a bit more "clever" to not sound like a close-minded moralist. I could debate the various DMCA-esque issues surrounding this with you but it would be a waste of time if you've decided in advance that your argument is correct and doesn't need justification.
You'd think that code fragment would be in Perl, or Python, or even better, obfuscated c:
for(;printf("This decision [etc]");tiredOfHearingIt){}
My DSL provider KICKS ASS - panix.com in NYC. On DSLReports it averages 4+ starts IN ALL CATEGORIES.
Panix, like any other non-humongous ISP had to make hard choices in order to offer DSL, and theirs was Northpoint.
BONG, wrong choice obviously, but don't think DSLReports would have prepared them (or me) for this.
Bush and USA Inc. went to war to protect the credit of Kuwaiti petrodollars, as well as to bitch-slap our lackey (Saddam) for getting too uppity with US-made arms.
It's always interesting to read a self-righteous, insulting comment that is nonetheless complete BS.
Maybe you should consider getting information from a scientific source, instead of a corporate propaganda site.
I do lots of OO programming and generally enjoy it's features, but it's easy to poke holes in your example.
For instance, what if EVERY shape needs a similar change in how it's drawn? You'll have to go modify a bunch of files. Whereas in a switch statement, it's all in one place: much easier.
They described (with pictures) how this Minesweeper thing works, something about OR gates ... possible and impossible configurations ... much more informative than boston.com's article. However, I don't have the magazine ...
The exact wording from the cybercrime document is:
Title 3 - Content-related offences
Article 9 - Offences related to child pornography
1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law when committed without right and intentionally the following conduct:
a. offering or making available child pornography through a computer system;
b. distributing or transmitting child pornography through a computer system;
c. producing child pornography for the purpose of its distribution through a computer system;
d. possessing child pornography in a computer system or on a computer-data storage medium.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1 above "child pornography" shall include pornographic material that visually depicts:
a. a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct;
b. a person appearing to be a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct;
c. realistic images representing a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct.
3. For the purpose of paragraph 2 above, the term "minor" shall include all persons under 18 years of age. A Party may, however, require a lower age-limit, which shall be not less than 16 years.
The creation and use of acronyms to express colloquialisms specific to discussions in so-called "chat rooms", "message boards", "newsgroups" and "Slashdot forums" in order to succinctly express complex thoughts. For example, the process is used to communicate the phrase "I Am Not A Non-Sesquipedalian" in the far more succinct acronym, "IANANSQPD".
Main Problem:
Band A and Band B are in said association. Band A rules. Band B blows. Band A makes mad cash. Band B spends trust fund on CD.
Why should Band A have anything to do with Band B, much less share the dough?
Your tone is as though this is a rhetorical question. But the answer is not assured, nor are its implications self-evident.
Corporations have great value to their prinicipals, by sheilding them from individual liability for the corporation's actions. Corporations can (and do) commit felonies but their principals never go to jail.
So exactly why should a corporation itself have rights? Rights pertain to a liberal notion that human beings have inalienable rights. A corporation is a thing, a sheild, an entity. It shouldn't have any more rights than my car.
Having said that, corporations do have rights. Shows you the kind of influence corporate interests have had and continue to have over the legislative process...