if you wanna play it like that, the US invented almost every major technology this century...
Arguable, but even if they did, totally irrelevant, since they promptly patented every last of their inventions and charged others for it, and now are whining when they in turn should pay for using sometime someone other invented.
As a thought experiment, try rolling a die, giving yourself 1 point for an odd number and -1 for an even number. How many rolls do you need to get to a score of 20 (in real life, you need more than 20 good mutations and the good mutations seem less likely than the bad ones, put this is a thought experiment)? Using a Perlscript, I ran a thousand trials and got an average of 222,155.664 "generations" necessary to get a measly 20 positive "mutations" -- that's over three million years just to modify 20 genes in a positive manner. How many species are in man's immediate ancestor tree? How many years has this planet existed?
That doesn't make any sense. You try to discredit natural selection with an experiment THAT DOESN'T SELECT!
That's the whole point, pure 50/50 random process obviously doesn't produce any "points" over long term, but if odd numbers are positive, and even numbers are negative, they don't just happen and then be forgotten, "dice" that undergoes "odd number mutation" has an advantage and dice that undergoes "even number mutation" has a disadvantage.
As long as we can and do use technology to do this, there isn't very strong selective pressure towards "naturally attractive" persons. The women whose tan is from solarium and huge knockers and fat lips are silicone are just as likely to breed as those who are naturally equipped with the same looks.
Besides, the physical traits that seem sexually attractive change so often there's no time for anything like that to happen.
I didn't see anyone claim that this should happen without modifications to external organs, if the breathing system would consist of just what's now nose, you're quite correct.
This is exceedingly unlikely to ever naturally happen, of course, but since this is pure fiction anyway, why should we feel limited by that. Same goes for the smell/taste, the new "eating mouth" could still have olfactory nerves.
Uhh, the vocal cords would obviously move into the breathing part, along with the rest of the organs that deal with air, why would they be in any way dependent on being along the digestive tract?
FUD, obviously, if there's any question about the rest, reading the "THEY can mind control you if you eat microwaved food" part should be enough to clear all doubts. Well, unless you wear a tinfoil hat, of course.
Did you know raw plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man
And did you know that it's not? Nowhere even NEAR.
Plutonium is a heavy metal, it's nasty, it's toxic, but it's not "the most toxic substance known to man". It's chemically in the same league of toxicity as, say, lead.
The title of "most toxic substance known to man" based on smallest lethal dose is still safely and with respectable margin held by your friendly neighborhood bacteria produced botulin toxin.
Again, I may well have done something wrong, so correct me if you spot something.
I'd like one of those magic laptops that chuck along with 4mW too. Unfortunately they don't exist.
If 3Ah battery lasts three hours, then it's being drained constantly for 1A, 15V*1A is 15W. Maybe 4000x difference in power consumption will change rest of your calculations a bit?
That's "you made this up", not "you're". And no, I didn't make that up. I just installed both 1.0.3 and 1.0.4 over another version, and neither leaves multiple entries in add/remove dialog.
Ff still leave mess.
You, on the other hand, just did.
Do not post if you're know nothing about it.
Very good advice you should follow yourself. Makes it even more pathetic to be guilty of what you accuse others of, no?
I have a 1978 British Mini (the old ones) and the gas mileage is anywhere between 50 and 60 mpg. Here we are almost 30 years later and we are getting- lower gas mileage?
If TFA numbers are correct, Insight is getting slightly better average mileage - not worse, and as small as it is by current standards, it's larger car than Mini.
And considering that you might just be very good at driving the little beast economically - if we assume that, some people at the site are driving even the Prius with better mileage than Mini, and it's MUCH larger car, and the average numbers of best insight drivers are 90+ MPG. Not too shabby.
There are also physical limits on efficiency of internal combustion engine, they don't magically go away just by waiting 50 years.
...in the new Mozilla 1.7.7 I installed just seconds ago. Wasn't a fix for this made available a long time ago?
Yes. But the fix caused a regression, and without knowing how many sites it would affect, both Firefox 1.0 and Mozilla 1.7 branches decided to leave it out.
Those regressions have now been fixed too, so it will be fixed in 1.1 and 1.8.
The/. bug is infuriating, because it has been fixed in the trunk build since soon after it was reported. Are you saying that Seamonkey's Gecko branched from the trunk recently enough to have this bug fix, or is that still to come for both builds? (maybe I'll use the Suite for a while then...)
Both Aviary and 1.7 Gecko branch from trunk right after this bug landed and did have it, but it caused a regression of unknown severity and BOTH branches backed it out, so no, it shouldn't be in either, unless Seamonkey folks apply patches from trunk after branching.
DOSBox was suggested for the timing problems, but I'd say there is a better way - play the Amiga version. It looked a lot better (hard not to, DOS games of that age were without exception ugly as hell). It sounded a lot better (same deal here). And it still plays the same. Works fine in UAE and Fellow, and pretty much every machine should have muscle for emulating it by now.
In other words, it's win-win-win situation compared to the PC version.
None of the security problems on Windows comes from the overall method of software distribution.
The ENTIRE problem with spyware and other malware comes from malicious WEB SITES and also from people downloading pointless, stupid little "free" programs from COMMERCIAL entities. If users were made more aware of the legitimate freeware sites where much better freeware was available, they would be less inclined to download anything they see thrust at them.
You're contradicting yourself, if and when the overall method of software distribution on windows encourages users to search software from arbitrary web sites, some of which CAN AND WILL be malicious, there's clearly some kind of problem in it.
As for user education, sorry to ruin your day, but it is impossible, there will NEVER be a day without clueless users, so some kind of additional safeguards need to be deployed.
None of the security ease of Linux comes from having distros distribute the software. It comes ENTIRELY from the fact that OSS is not commercial and has no motivation to install spyware.
You're right in that Linux currently doesn't have enough commercial players and the malware they bring in with, but should it ever become popular on desktop, they WILL follow. And if that day comes, the distros can certainly help.
Think distros as your "recognized freeware sites" - they do exactly the same job, they screen the shoftware, and pick only what's good to distribute. But since they also double as the very distribution method and not just repository, assuming good enough selection, users will grow content with installing packages only from distro, and barrier for getting stuff from arbitrary, possibly malicious, web sites will heighten. It won't prevent the idiot from installing spyware from the web, but it will make it less likely to happen, just because most of the time there's no need to do that.
The nice thing about ebuilds, as opposed to binary packages it that so long as you have libraries installed that can work with foobar, you can install foobar.
There's no such difference, since we're talking about creating your own ebuilds, the logical comparison is not to ready built binary packages but to whipping your own as well.
RPM spec files aren't black magic, it's no big deal to create a totally new package, rather similar to creating ebuilds, I'd expect, and recompiling source rpm's is dead simple. I doubt debs are much harder.
I remember for example fighting with mplayer (wants GCC 2.95) and redhat (wants GCC 2.96), back in the days that I used redhat. There is nothing autopackage would have done to solve that problem, because it's a binary packaging format.
There's nothing ebuild would have done to solve that problem, because it wasn't problem with ABI, mplayer just didn't like 2.96, recompiling it with it would not have helped.
Your knowledge about binary packages and especially where they come from and how easily they can be modified seems quite lacking.
Yes. A contract that shifts ownership of the item from question from the seller to you.
It is not, however a contract with whatever hidden conditions the company making the item in question has decided to include within the package. You can't make an agreement over something you don't know about.
Cario/Berlin is a fucking joke. That "project" has been around for at least 7 years and hasn't produced jack shit. Truely the GNU Hurd of windowing systems.
Cairo doesn't have anything to do with Fresco/Berlin, aside from the fact that both projects have a namesake city.
It's not a windowing system, it hasn't been around for 7 years, it's not dead, and it has produced quite a bit.
Both the app and the library are still somewhat unfinished, but quite usable, and not frontends to cdrtools.
Re:Nero was first. Who's copying who?
on
NeroLinux vs. K3b
·
· Score: 1
No.
Gtoaster (and by consequence, nerolinux) doesn't look anything like Nero 6, I'd be really surprised if it did, unless they have a time machine, considering that its development was halted 4 years ago. It bears a slight resemblance to nero4 and 5 (as well as file managers and ftp clients), but is hardly a copy, unlike nerolinux.
I'm okay with copying though, on both sides, but am puzzled by why they choosed to copy five years old interface that looks like shit.
I mean, why would anybody want to run an OS which is just a test platform for the real, non-free product?
If it were JUST a test platform for the real, non-free product, you're right, nobody would want to run it. But since it isn't "just" but "also", I fail to see the relevance here.
You're right in that FC isn't particularly good choice for servers if updating every year or so is too often, but it is a good and quite stable desktop OS with up to date software and well integrated GNOME desktop. Should I happen to help in testing, that's because it will make FC a better desktop too, not just RHEL. If they happen to make some money out of what is basically supported-for-longer-time version of the same product, I see nothing wrong with that, quite contrary, since it helps them continue giving quite a few gtk, gnome and gcc hackers a day job and thus vastly help development, and whatever else they may be currently funding, it's a GOOD thing.
Bitching about that is just as nuts as going ballistic because Xandros or Lindows benefits from your usage of Debian, so it's basically "just a testing platform" for real, "non-free" product.
Slashdot Mirror
if you wanna play it like that, the US invented almost every major technology this century ...
Arguable, but even if they did, totally irrelevant, since they promptly patented every last of their inventions and charged others for it, and now are whining when they in turn should pay for using sometime someone other invented.
As a thought experiment, try rolling a die, giving yourself 1 point for an odd number and -1 for an even number. How many rolls do you need to get to a score of 20 (in real life, you need more than 20 good mutations and the good mutations seem less likely than the bad ones, put this is a thought experiment)? Using a Perlscript, I ran a thousand trials and got an average of 222,155.664 "generations" necessary to get a measly 20 positive "mutations" -- that's over three million years just to modify 20 genes in a positive manner. How many species are in man's immediate ancestor tree? How many years has this planet existed?
That doesn't make any sense. You try to discredit natural selection with an experiment THAT DOESN'T SELECT!
That's the whole point, pure 50/50 random process obviously doesn't produce any "points" over long term, but if odd numbers are positive, and even numbers are negative, they don't just happen and then be forgotten, "dice" that undergoes "odd number mutation" has an advantage and dice that undergoes "even number mutation" has a disadvantage.
As long as we can and do use technology to do this, there isn't very strong selective pressure towards "naturally attractive" persons. The women whose tan is from solarium and huge knockers and fat lips are silicone are just as likely to breed as those who are naturally equipped with the same looks.
Besides, the physical traits that seem sexually attractive change so often there's no time for anything like that to happen.
I didn't see anyone claim that this should happen without modifications to external organs, if the breathing system would consist of just what's now nose, you're quite correct.
This is exceedingly unlikely to ever naturally happen, of course, but since this is pure fiction anyway, why should we feel limited by that. Same goes for the smell/taste, the new "eating mouth" could still have olfactory nerves.
Uhh, the vocal cords would obviously move into the breathing part, along with the rest of the organs that deal with air, why would they be in any way dependent on being along the digestive tract?
FUD, obviously, if there's any question about the rest, reading the "THEY can mind control you if you eat microwaved food" part should be enough to clear all doubts. Well, unless you wear a tinfoil hat, of course.
Did you know raw plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man
And did you know that it's not? Nowhere even NEAR.
Plutonium is a heavy metal, it's nasty, it's toxic, but it's not "the most toxic substance known to man". It's chemically in the same league of toxicity as, say, lead.
The title of "most toxic substance known to man" based on smallest lethal dose is still safely and with respectable margin held by your friendly neighborhood bacteria produced botulin toxin.
Again, I may well have done something wrong, so correct me if you spot something.
I'd like one of those magic laptops that chuck along with 4mW too. Unfortunately they don't exist.
If 3Ah battery lasts three hours, then it's being drained constantly for 1A, 15V*1A is 15W. Maybe 4000x difference in power consumption will change rest of your calculations a bit?
Your microwave makes beta particles
Um. No it doesn't, it makes microwaves, photons at ~2.4GHz wavelength, beta particles are high-energy electrons.
You're, of course, made this up.
That's "you made this up", not "you're". And no, I didn't make that up. I just installed both 1.0.3 and 1.0.4 over another version, and neither leaves multiple entries in add/remove dialog.
Ff still leave mess.
You, on the other hand, just did.
Do not post if you're know nothing about it.
Very good advice you should follow yourself. Makes it even more pathetic to be guilty of what you accuse others of, no?
No, it doesn't any more, that was fixed in 1.0.3
I have a 1978 British Mini (the old ones) and the gas mileage is anywhere between 50 and 60 mpg. Here we are almost 30 years later and we are getting- lower gas mileage?
If TFA numbers are correct, Insight is getting slightly better average mileage - not worse, and as small as it is by current standards, it's larger car than Mini.
And considering that you might just be very good at driving the little beast economically - if we assume that, some people at the site are driving even the Prius with better mileage than Mini, and it's MUCH larger car, and the average numbers of best insight drivers are 90+ MPG. Not too shabby.
There are also physical limits on efficiency of internal combustion engine, they don't magically go away just by waiting 50 years.
There's nothing great about XHTML. Valid HTML works just fine.
Sure there is. Valid HTML works just nice indeed, and the great thing about XHTML is that it FORCES you to write valid markup.
Yes. But the fix caused a regression, and without knowing how many sites it would affect, both Firefox 1.0 and Mozilla 1.7 branches decided to leave it out.
Those regressions have now been fixed too, so it will be fixed in 1.1 and 1.8.
The /. bug is infuriating, because it has been fixed in the trunk build since soon after it was reported. Are you saying that Seamonkey's Gecko branched from the trunk recently enough to have this bug fix, or is that still to come for both builds? (maybe I'll use the Suite for a while then...)
Both Aviary and 1.7 Gecko branch from trunk right after this bug landed and did have it, but it caused a regression of unknown severity and BOTH branches backed it out, so no, it shouldn't be in either, unless Seamonkey folks apply patches from trunk after branching.
DOSBox was suggested for the timing problems, but I'd say there is a better way - play the Amiga version. It looked a lot better (hard not to, DOS games of that age were without exception ugly as hell). It sounded a lot better (same deal here). And it still plays the same. Works fine in UAE and Fellow, and pretty much every machine should have muscle for emulating it by now.
In other words, it's win-win-win situation compared to the PC version.
It's nigh impossible to lose landers after you purchase all the upgrades from Melnorme.
Of course the challenge is to gain enough credits with the lousy landers to do that, though... unless you stumble upon a few rainbow worlds.
You know, apt-get has been available for Fedora (and RH before that) for several years.
So, how about going back under that bridge like a good little troll?
None of the security problems on Windows comes from the overall method of software distribution.
The ENTIRE problem with spyware and other malware comes from malicious WEB SITES and also from people downloading pointless, stupid little "free" programs from COMMERCIAL entities. If users were made more aware of the legitimate freeware sites where much better freeware was available, they would be less inclined to download anything they see thrust at them.
You're contradicting yourself, if and when the overall method of software distribution on windows encourages users to search software from arbitrary web sites, some of which CAN AND WILL be malicious, there's clearly some kind of problem in it.
As for user education, sorry to ruin your day, but it is impossible, there will NEVER be a day without clueless users, so some kind of additional safeguards need to be deployed.
None of the security ease of Linux comes from having distros distribute the software. It comes ENTIRELY from the fact that OSS is not commercial and has no motivation to install spyware.
You're right in that Linux currently doesn't have enough commercial players and the malware they bring in with, but should it ever become popular on desktop, they WILL follow. And if that day comes, the distros can certainly help.
Think distros as your "recognized freeware sites" - they do exactly the same job, they screen the shoftware, and pick only what's good to distribute. But since they also double as the very distribution method and not just repository, assuming good enough selection, users will grow content with installing packages only from distro, and barrier for getting stuff from arbitrary, possibly malicious, web sites will heighten. It won't prevent the idiot from installing spyware from the web, but it will make it less likely to happen, just because most of the time there's no need to do that.
The nice thing about ebuilds, as opposed to binary packages it that so long as you have libraries installed that can work with foobar, you can install foobar.
There's no such difference, since we're talking about creating your own ebuilds, the logical comparison is not to ready built binary packages but to whipping your own as well.
RPM spec files aren't black magic, it's no big deal to create a totally new package, rather similar to creating ebuilds, I'd expect, and recompiling source rpm's is dead simple. I doubt debs are much harder.
I remember for example fighting with mplayer (wants GCC 2.95) and redhat (wants GCC 2.96), back in the days that I used redhat.
There is nothing autopackage would have done to solve that problem, because it's a binary packaging format.
There's nothing ebuild would have done to solve that problem, because it wasn't problem with ABI, mplayer just didn't like 2.96, recompiling it with it would not have helped.
Your knowledge about binary packages and especially where they come from and how easily they can be modified seems quite lacking.
Every time you buy anything, that's a contract.
Yes. A contract that shifts ownership of the item from question from the seller to you.
It is not, however a contract with whatever hidden conditions the company making the item in question has decided to include within the package. You can't make an agreement over something you don't know about.
Cario/Berlin is a fucking joke. That "project" has been around for at least 7 years and hasn't produced jack shit. Truely the GNU Hurd of windowing systems.
Cairo doesn't have anything to do with Fresco/Berlin, aside from the fact that both projects have a namesake city.
It's not a windowing system, it hasn't been around for 7 years, it's not dead, and it has produced quite a bit.
Wrong, Coaster uses libburn.
Both the app and the library are still somewhat unfinished, but quite usable, and not frontends to cdrtools.
No.
Gtoaster (and by consequence, nerolinux) doesn't look anything like Nero 6, I'd be really surprised if it did, unless they have a time machine, considering that its development was halted 4 years ago.
It bears a slight resemblance to nero4 and 5 (as well as file managers and ftp clients), but is hardly a copy, unlike nerolinux.
I'm okay with copying though, on both sides, but am puzzled by why they choosed to copy five years old interface that looks like shit.
I mean, why would anybody want to run an OS which is just a test platform for the real, non-free product?
If it were JUST a test platform for the real, non-free product, you're right, nobody would want to run it. But since it isn't "just" but "also", I fail to see the relevance here.
You're right in that FC isn't particularly good choice for servers if updating every year or so is too often, but it is a good and quite stable desktop OS with up to date software and well integrated GNOME desktop. Should I happen to help in testing, that's because it will make FC a better desktop too, not just RHEL. If they happen to make some money out of what is basically supported-for-longer-time version of the same product, I see nothing wrong with that, quite contrary, since it helps them continue giving quite a few gtk, gnome and gcc hackers a day job and thus vastly help development, and whatever else they may be currently funding, it's a GOOD thing.
Bitching about that is just as nuts as going ballistic because Xandros or Lindows benefits from your usage of Debian, so it's basically "just a testing platform" for real, "non-free" product.