Europe has very strong anti-dumping laws generally. This could be considered dumping; somebody has to pay for the shipping after all. If the publisher recommends that it be sold for a certain price that you may not be more than 5% off of, you can betcha that the thing isn't sold to the stores for any less than 5% off of the recommended price (and that in low-supply areas, the stores put 10% on top of that price). I don't mean to defend it, I think it's old-fashioned and awkward; I'm just trying to explain it. In theory, Amazon could try to push everyone off the market by offering books for a few cents for a few years. Where do you draw the line ? I know the taxman will draw a line at a certain point at least.
That (the fact that it turned out to be religiously non-beneficial) wasn't known until it was all over. The same can be said about the reconquista, or the inquisition (which wasn't either, if you look at it over a hundred years), or any major Catholic endevour lasting more than say, a decade. All the same the crusades could have produced a Catholic Asia minor.
The crusades not related to Christianity ? That's bloody revisionist history, that is. That's like saying that Bernard de Clairvaux wasn't a monk, that they weren't announced by the pope, that people weren't summoned to it through the pulpits of Europe, threatened with excommunication, that they didn't perform mass when they reached Jerusalem, and that the knights templar weren't a holy roman order.
O, they weren't/true/ christians ? They might have dabbled in trade on the side a bit, you say ? The old true scotsman at work again, I see. What's next - the inquisition wasn't really related to christianity ? The reconquista wasn't really related to christianity ? Girolamo Savonerola wasn't really christian ? Calvin wasn't really christian ? The Catholics and Protestants, in their clashes in France, Brittain and the Netherlands weren't really christian ? WTF ?
I didn't mash my Windows key; that would be such a shame of this nice keyboard. Besides, I can't get any drill close enough to the surface without mashing other keys as well. And I'm not using it either. I have WindowMaker put everything I want behind a few function-keys.
O my god man - I think you better call mr Joy, Gosling, or whoever is in charge of Stanford University Network these days pronto and tell 'em that. Quick ! There's not a minute to waste ! Think of the money that stand to lose.
Hearts need (oxygenated) blood themselves. You could only feed the venous-blood-heart with oxygenated blood if you rerouted some of the the arterial-blood-heart-blood back to the venous-blood-heart, which makes it impractical.
And not because of the 'dogfood' thing; Sun just shouldn't make any plans that they can only harvest on in seven years. Seriously, 2015 ? Who knows whether Sun will be around in 2009 ?
Your self-image, the precise volume that you occupy in space and how it's organized, is one of the most important aspects of your consciousness. It allows you to navigate past a table in the hallway and miss it by a fraction of a centimeter. It's also very dynamic; after all - people change when they grow. Damage to that area of the brain is debilitating; not just phantom-phenomena (pains), but there are people who cannot move a leg if they don't see it. Others imagine that the person in the mirror is someone else.
"Remember, these parsers were written back when the worst a bad.DOC file would do is crash Word and/.'s complaints about Word mainly centered around bloat. If MS had spent time on hardening the parser,/. would have bitched about how Office was late, slow, and bloated. Nobody would know (or care) about the security."
What is the worst that Word can do these days ? What's the worst it _should_ be able to do ?
We'll probably find out when this thing is eventually synthesized, at great cost, that it looks greyish brown, opaque, smells of sulphur, has no valuable electronic characteristics and is best used for plugging holes in trees with.
I'm sure if the guys from antiword, catdoc, abiword and openoffice can (re)write an interpreter, then so can some guys at microsoft. The older formats are so featureless, that you should be able to write a renderer (at least) using perl or visual basic or something.
See my reply further downthread. I'm currently involved in a project that could really benefit from a proper implementation of a distributed filesystem (so not NFS); it doesn't seem to exist in UNIX land - people seem to have given up on it. Why ? I think it is because they feel that UNIX 'ends' before there can be such a thing; it's out of reach, as it were.
APIs - the whole 'everything is a file' dogma was brilliant back in the day. Today it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I still want 'everything' to be 'something', though. Some handle that I can query generically as to its capabilities (selecting on it, get properties, set flags, etc). I even want to be able to make one such handle myself - with callbacks or something. But I can't. And the APIs that generate such things are all so very different, that it's no wonder people say that C is hard to learn. It's not true: you can learn C in a day, but its APIs carry the signature of thirty-five years of development: the difference between fcntl() and pthread_mutex_init() is so vast, philosophically, that it's no miracle people give up on C. And don't get me started on the thread-safety of the C library. No fault of K&R's, though - they didn't know about threads. But why oh why wasn't this thing, this beautiful thing, given a good overhaul a while back ?
Here's a suggestion: develop a good macro language for C before the next standardization, design the extended (POSIX) standard API from ground up, and then create a backward compatibility layer using said macroes. Everything should still be spiffy, thanks to the macroes, but at least we can move on with some more modern APIs.
Eh yeah. But the C API _does_ end up in system calls (that often have remarkably similar function names), right ? So you're saying that Linux has a standard system call API to filesystems to implement transactions ? I didn't think so either.
That's the microkernel p.o.v. isn't it ? The thing is, I may run two or three services on a distributed set of boxes, that all have their own implementation of a distributed filesystem; I have to make two or three configurations on those machines in order to achieve that. I don't want that: I want the kernel to recognize the cloud that it's a part of.
Also: virtualization of the same operating system within itself (scaling the other way 'round if you will): I'd really like for the kernel to guard such processes as 1) it can optimize better and 2) it's more capable of handling safety/sandbox issues.
And Gnome. And the media players on X. They're either superb copies of old tech, or they're just running behind whoever-sets-the-trend. It's also very untrue with regards to apache, perl, python, webbrowsers (who's running after whom in this game ?). But operating systems need an overhaul, that's for sure. Not that old micro/monolithic debate (that I couldn't care less about), but currently a whole lot of tech is ending up in userland where it doesn't belong: virtualization, network-distributed/scaled filesystems, network-distributed/scaled services. And APIs. I mean, by now, transactions on a filesystem should be part of your standard C-API; read, write, oh sorry, I didn't mean that: rollback. Why isn't it ? Standardized APIs with regards to shared memory, synchronization devices, events; the UNIX crowd seems to find it very acceptable to rely on backward compatibility here. Why ?
Can someone please explain why all these dorks are spamming links to minicity on slashdot recently ? What is it ? And why do they need our clicks ? Do they get free 'houses' to build or something in exchange for ad-eyeballs ?
The above is a spamtroll who has reached new depths of depravity in his cunning to lead us onto his minicity website. Seriously dude - are you in it for the money or something ?
Slashdot Mirror
Europe has very strong anti-dumping laws generally. This could be considered dumping; somebody has to pay for the shipping after all. If the publisher recommends that it be sold for a certain price that you may not be more than 5% off of, you can betcha that the thing isn't sold to the stores for any less than 5% off of the recommended price (and that in low-supply areas, the stores put 10% on top of that price). I don't mean to defend it, I think it's old-fashioned and awkward; I'm just trying to explain it. In theory, Amazon could try to push everyone off the market by offering books for a few cents for a few years. Where do you draw the line ? I know the taxman will draw a line at a certain point at least.
That (the fact that it turned out to be religiously non-beneficial) wasn't known until it was all over. The same can be said about the reconquista, or the inquisition (which wasn't either, if you look at it over a hundred years), or any major Catholic endevour lasting more than say, a decade. All the same the crusades could have produced a Catholic Asia minor.
The crusades not related to Christianity ? That's bloody revisionist history, that is. That's like saying that Bernard de Clairvaux wasn't a monk, that they weren't announced by the pope, that people weren't summoned to it through the pulpits of Europe, threatened with excommunication, that they didn't perform mass when they reached Jerusalem, and that the knights templar weren't a holy roman order.
/true/ christians ? They might have dabbled in trade on the side a bit, you say ? The old true scotsman at work again, I see. What's next - the inquisition wasn't really related to christianity ? The reconquista wasn't really related to christianity ? Girolamo Savonerola wasn't really christian ? Calvin wasn't really christian ? The Catholics and Protestants, in their clashes in France, Brittain and the Netherlands weren't really christian ? WTF ?
O, they weren't
I didn't mash my Windows key; that would be such a shame of this nice keyboard. Besides, I can't get any drill close enough to the surface without mashing other keys as well. And I'm not using it either. I have WindowMaker put everything I want behind a few function-keys.
O my god man - I think you better call mr Joy, Gosling, or whoever is in charge of Stanford University Network these days pronto and tell 'em that. Quick ! There's not a minute to waste ! Think of the money that stand to lose.
Man is a like wolf to mankind; 'man' 'to other men' 'wolf' (is). It kinda misses 'est' at the end, although that isn't strictly necessary.
It's 'anglospheric'. All they have to do is add a few boxes to every Echolon relay station.
Hearts need (oxygenated) blood themselves. You could only feed the venous-blood-heart with oxygenated blood if you rerouted some of the the arterial-blood-heart-blood back to the venous-blood-heart, which makes it impractical.
And not because of the 'dogfood' thing; Sun just shouldn't make any plans that they can only harvest on in seven years. Seriously, 2015 ? Who knows whether Sun will be around in 2009 ?
Depends on your version of Italy, I suppose. I've done 200 kph on the road from Firenze to Milano multiple times.
That's because of all these 'Debbie does Dallas' videos of yours. "Hillary takes New Hampshire" isn't a porn video, you know.
Your self-image, the precise volume that you occupy in space and how it's organized, is one of the most important aspects of your consciousness. It allows you to navigate past a table in the hallway and miss it by a fraction of a centimeter. It's also very dynamic; after all - people change when they grow. Damage to that area of the brain is debilitating; not just phantom-phenomena (pains), but there are people who cannot move a leg if they don't see it. Others imagine that the person in the mirror is someone else.
"Remember, these parsers were written back when the worst a bad .DOC file would do is crash Word and /.'s complaints about Word mainly centered around bloat. If MS had spent time on hardening the parser, /. would have bitched about how Office was late, slow, and bloated. Nobody would know (or care) about the security."
What is the worst that Word can do these days ? What's the worst it _should_ be able to do ?
Really ? Not at Ceasar's ? My, that's just fabulous !
We'll probably find out when this thing is eventually synthesized, at great cost, that it looks greyish brown, opaque, smells of sulphur, has no valuable electronic characteristics and is best used for plugging holes in trees with.
Yeah, but what if I want to run it off my perl-driven UNIX-hosted apache-embedded website ? Is the file-format open - that's more what I mean.
Does it come with a perl silverlight-generating library ? Because I can make flash on the fly now; is silverlight open ? Does it script ?
I'm sure if the guys from antiword, catdoc, abiword and openoffice can (re)write an interpreter, then so can some guys at microsoft. The older formats are so featureless, that you should be able to write a renderer (at least) using perl or visual basic or something.
Well then, it's a good thing we're not living there yet, isn't it ?
See my reply further downthread. I'm currently involved in a project that could really benefit from a proper implementation of a distributed filesystem (so not NFS); it doesn't seem to exist in UNIX land - people seem to have given up on it. Why ? I think it is because they feel that UNIX 'ends' before there can be such a thing; it's out of reach, as it were.
APIs - the whole 'everything is a file' dogma was brilliant back in the day. Today it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I still want 'everything' to be 'something', though. Some handle that I can query generically as to its capabilities (selecting on it, get properties, set flags, etc). I even want to be able to make one such handle myself - with callbacks or something. But I can't. And the APIs that generate such things are all so very different, that it's no wonder people say that C is hard to learn. It's not true: you can learn C in a day, but its APIs carry the signature of thirty-five years of development: the difference between fcntl() and pthread_mutex_init() is so vast, philosophically, that it's no miracle people give up on C. And don't get me started on the thread-safety of the C library. No fault of K&R's, though - they didn't know about threads. But why oh why wasn't this thing, this beautiful thing, given a good overhaul a while back ?
Here's a suggestion: develop a good macro language for C before the next standardization, design the extended (POSIX) standard API from ground up, and then create a backward compatibility layer using said macroes. Everything should still be spiffy, thanks to the macroes, but at least we can move on with some more modern APIs.
Eh yeah. But the C API _does_ end up in system calls (that often have remarkably similar function names), right ? So you're saying that Linux has a standard system call API to filesystems to implement transactions ? I didn't think so either.
That's the microkernel p.o.v. isn't it ? The thing is, I may run two or three services on a distributed set of boxes, that all have their own implementation of a distributed filesystem; I have to make two or three configurations on those machines in order to achieve that. I don't want that: I want the kernel to recognize the cloud that it's a part of.
Also: virtualization of the same operating system within itself (scaling the other way 'round if you will): I'd really like for the kernel to guard such processes as 1) it can optimize better and 2) it's more capable of handling safety/sandbox issues.
And Gnome. And the media players on X. They're either superb copies of old tech, or they're just running behind whoever-sets-the-trend. It's also very untrue with regards to apache, perl, python, webbrowsers (who's running after whom in this game ?). But operating systems need an overhaul, that's for sure. Not that old micro/monolithic debate (that I couldn't care less about), but currently a whole lot of tech is ending up in userland where it doesn't belong: virtualization, network-distributed/scaled filesystems, network-distributed/scaled services. And APIs. I mean, by now, transactions on a filesystem should be part of your standard C-API; read, write, oh sorry, I didn't mean that: rollback. Why isn't it ? Standardized APIs with regards to shared memory, synchronization devices, events; the UNIX crowd seems to find it very acceptable to rely on backward compatibility here. Why ?
Can someone please explain why all these dorks are spamming links to minicity on slashdot recently ? What is it ? And why do they need our clicks ? Do they get free 'houses' to build or something in exchange for ad-eyeballs ?
The above is a spamtroll who has reached new depths of depravity in his cunning to lead us onto his minicity website. Seriously dude - are you in it for the money or something ?