From TFA:
Among other reversals, Microsoft will make available to so-called "open source" software developers information they need to make their programs work smoothly with Microsoft's Windows operating system for personal computers. and
First, open source software developers will be able to access and use the interoperability information. Microsoft will not assert patents against non-commercial open source software development projects.
Here are some other screenshots. I would say it's rather annoying! I like it better when they have fake ads in these types of situations if they feel it's better for the ambiance - Fallout is a great example of this done well.
The District of Columbia, founded on July 16, 1790, is a federal district as specified by the United States Constitution. The U.S. Congress has ultimate authority over the District of Columbia, though it has delegated considerable authority to the municipal government. source
This is great! I'm sure the ISO will straighten out its act, even though it may take a bit. And, when they do, the chairmen and respectable organizations will be rightfully angry at M$ for this. Which means that for the next round of voting on the Open Orifice XML, M$ will be in a much, much tougher spot : the vote fixing will (hopefully) be taken care of, and the more senior and influential members will be pissed. This of course being in addition to the crap "standard" that it is.
IBM® Lotus®Symphony(TM) is propriatery, not open source. I'm not sure on this, but it could be that Sun sold the code to IBM. They are, after all, the only copyright holder of OOo.
I've had things like that happen before. Even after the misconfiguration is fixed, it can still take hours or days for all the messages to clear out.
Definitly grounds for being taken out back and given a bullet to the back of the head (terminated).
And half of those "Islamic" scholars weren't Arab anyway In my post I tried to use the word "muslim" rather than arab (i may have slipped once) since the arabs themselves are/were only a small portion of the islamic world. And it is true that much of the important advances were made by persians, turcs, mughals (in india), etc... The point is that they were muslim.
Islam has a prohibition against artistic depictions of living things. Nope, there is no such explicit order in the coran. It is, however, like all religious texts, wide open to interpretation, and there are a bunch of fanatics that do say this.
Wherever Muslims invaded, there was an enormous destruction of artworks. It depends. As I had said above, the ottomans were very liberal as far as letting territories conquered keep their traditions and religions, although the governing powers were muslim. Same with the mughals, which ruled over india but did not attempt to destroy hinduism.
I gave examples of bad acts done by christians more as a counter point, there are a multitude of horrible things muslims have commited as well, just as there are many examples of christians doing great and wonderful things. I guess my point is that islam is no worse, and no better than any other religion. It all depends on how the people practice it.
False. Islam was already well established when the arabic world was more advanced then the europeans. When the christians were burning roman and greek science (philosophy, medicine, etc) books, the muslims were preserving them in great libraries. Similarly for greek and roman art, the christians destroyed countless statues, the muslims decorated their palaces with them. They also created their own art, music, poetry, architecture, some of the most beautiful things ever created by man. They made advancedments in medicine, mathematics (we get our number system from them), philosophy, even early forms of robotics. Later, the ottomans were one of the most powerful and technologically advanced empires the world has ever seen, yet they allowed their people to keep their local customs and religions.
BTW, I am a staunch supporter of atheism, and while I do think all religions in essence, are bullshit, it doesn't mean that great things can't come from them, or at the very least, despite them.
Have we reached the place where most people and businesses don't have to upgrade every couple of years? It depends. If you don't want to upgrade software then we have already reached that point long ago (minus games of course). However each new version of most software makes them more bloated and the hardware requirements keep on going up. If you upgrade software then you need to upgrade hardware every couple years.
Will environmental concerns put a brake on new computer sales? They might if regulation is passed to increase the cost of computer parts to reflect their carbon output during manufacture. Given that they are manufactured in China and the companies are US based, both of which are not very eager for this type of regulation (to say the least), I doubt this will happen anytime soon.
Re:gypped? what is this 1939 berlin?
on
Halo 3 Review
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Bullsh*t! You self-censured yourself when saying that words are neutral and innocent, therefore you must not believe what you say !
"Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits" -- George Carlin
Nah, some guy in front of the apple store walks up to you as you're leaving with your new iphone:
"Hey man, you lookin to unlock that iphone? Just walk down this alley with me..."
One would hope, but it doesn't look like it's going that way. If you look at Ingo's reply, then Roman's reply to that, you can see what could be the start of yet another flame fest:
Hi,
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So the most intrusive (math) aspects of your patch have been implemented
> already for CFS (almost a month ago), in a finegrained way.
Interesting claim, please substantiate.
> Peter's patches change the CFS calculations gradually over from
> 'normalized' to 'non-normalized' wait-runtime, to avoid the
> normalizing/denormalizing overhead and rounding error.
Actually it changes wait-runtime to a normalized value and it changes
nothing about the rounding error I was talking about.
It addresses the conversion error between the different units I was
mentioning in an earlier mail, but the value is still rounded.
> > This model is far more accurate than CFS is and doesn't add an error
> > over time, thus there are no more underflow/overflow anymore within
> > the described limits.
> ( your characterisation errs in that it makes it appear to be a common
> problem, while in practice it's only a corner-case limited to extreme
> negative nice levels and even there it needs a very high rate of
> scheduling and an artificially constructed workload: several hundreds
> of thousand of context switches per second with a yield-ing loop to be
> even measurable with unmodified CFS. So this is not a 2.6.23 issue at
> all - unless there's some testcase that proves the opposite. )
> with Peter's queue there are no underflows/overflows either anymore in
> any synthetic corner-case we could come up with. Peter's queue works
> well but it's 2.6.24 material.
Did you even try to understand what I wrote?
I didn't say that it's a "common problem", it's a conceptual problem. The
rounding has been improved lately, so it's not as easy to trigger with
some simple busy loops.
Peter's patches don't remove limit_wait_runtime() and AFAICT they can't,
so I'm really amazed how you can make such claims.
> All in one, we dont disagree, this is an incremental improvement we are
> thinking about for 2.6.24. We do disagree with this being positioned as
> something fundamentally different though - it's just the same thing
> mathematically, expressed without a "/weight" divisor, resulting in no
> change in scheduling behavior. (except for a small shift of CPU
> utilization for a synthetic corner-case)
Everytime I'm amazed how quickly you get to your judgements...:-(
Especially interesting is that you don't need to ask a single question for
that, which would mean you actually understood what I wrote, OTOH your
wild claims tell me something completely different.
BTW who is "we" and how is it possible that this meta mind can come to
such quick judgements?
The basic concept is quite different enough, one can e.g. see that I have
to calculate some of the key CFS variables for the debug output.
The concepts are related, but they are definitively not "the same thing
mathematically", the method of resolution is quite different, if you think
otherwise then please _prove_ it.
Not yet, though they are on their way to being in the standard. As far as sumerian cuneiform, they are already in utf-8, part of the ancient languages section.
"One character encoding to rule them all.";-)
Slashdot Mirror
Here are some other screenshots. I would say it's rather annoying! I like it better when they have fake ads in these types of situations if they feel it's better for the ambiance - Fallout is a great example of this done well.
screenshot 1
screenshot 2
screenshot 3
screenshot 4
Ads gallery
try this version
It is neither a state nor a city.
I believe the word you're looking for is 'gringo'.
Chill, it's a joke.
This is great! I'm sure the ISO will straighten out its act, even though it may take a bit. And, when they do, the chairmen and respectable organizations will be rightfully angry at M$ for this. Which means that for the next round of voting on the Open Orifice XML, M$ will be in a much, much tougher spot : the vote fixing will (hopefully) be taken care of, and the more senior and influential members will be pissed. This of course being in addition to the crap "standard" that it is.
:-)
My prediction? OOXML will not make ISO now
Right because Google will surely have less ads.
IBM® Lotus®Symphony(TM) is propriatery, not open source. I'm not sure on this, but it could be that Sun sold the code to IBM. They are, after all, the only copyright holder of OOo.
I used to really enjoy youtube, but the day I see ads on the videos I can't block is the day I never go back there.
Horse I'd Like to Fuck ?
It must suck to be that guy right about now!
I've had things like that happen before. Even after the misconfiguration is fixed, it can still take hours or days for all the messages to clear out.
Definitly grounds for being taken out back and given a bullet to the back of the head (terminated).
Islam has a prohibition against artistic depictions of living things. Nope, there is no such explicit order in the coran. It is, however, like all religious texts, wide open to interpretation, and there are a bunch of fanatics that do say this.
Wherever Muslims invaded, there was an enormous destruction of artworks. It depends. As I had said above, the ottomans were very liberal as far as letting territories conquered keep their traditions and religions, although the governing powers were muslim. Same with the mughals, which ruled over india but did not attempt to destroy hinduism.
I gave examples of bad acts done by christians more as a counter point, there are a multitude of horrible things muslims have commited as well, just as there are many examples of christians doing great and wonderful things. I guess my point is that islam is no worse, and no better than any other religion. It all depends on how the people practice it.
False. Islam was already well established when the arabic world was more advanced then the europeans. When the christians were burning roman and greek science (philosophy, medicine, etc) books, the muslims were preserving them in great libraries. Similarly for greek and roman art, the christians destroyed countless statues, the muslims decorated their palaces with them. They also created their own art, music, poetry, architecture, some of the most beautiful things ever created by man. They made advancedments in medicine, mathematics (we get our number system from them), philosophy, even early forms of robotics. Later, the ottomans were one of the most powerful and technologically advanced empires the world has ever seen, yet they allowed their people to keep their local customs and religions.
further reading
BTW, I am a staunch supporter of atheism, and while I do think all religions in essence, are bullshit, it doesn't mean that great things can't come from them, or at the very least, despite them.
"Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits" -- George Carlin
Could this post be related to this? The link to the bogus google video especially ...
That would be nice, wouldn't it?
Well then if the ipod is any indication, we should have linux running on the iphone one of these days.
Nah, some guy in front of the apple store walks up to you as you're leaving with your new iphone: ..."
"Hey man, you lookin to unlock that iphone? Just walk down this alley with me
I would think att would get pissed about that, seeing as how they have an exclusive contract with apple.
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So the most intrusive (math) aspects of your patch have been implemented
> already for CFS (almost a month ago), in a finegrained way.
Interesting claim, please substantiate.
> Peter's patches change the CFS calculations gradually over from
> 'normalized' to 'non-normalized' wait-runtime, to avoid the
> normalizing/denormalizing overhead and rounding error.
Actually it changes wait-runtime to a normalized value and it changes nothing about the rounding error I was talking about. It addresses the conversion error between the different units I was mentioning in an earlier mail, but the value is still rounded.
> > This model is far more accurate than CFS is and doesn't add an error
> > over time, thus there are no more underflow/overflow anymore within
> > the described limits.
> ( your characterisation errs in that it makes it appear to be a common
> problem, while in practice it's only a corner-case limited to extreme
> negative nice levels and even there it needs a very high rate of
> scheduling and an artificially constructed workload: several hundreds
> of thousand of context switches per second with a yield-ing loop to be
> even measurable with unmodified CFS. So this is not a 2.6.23 issue at
> all - unless there's some testcase that proves the opposite. )
> with Peter's queue there are no underflows/overflows either anymore in
> any synthetic corner-case we could come up with. Peter's queue works
> well but it's 2.6.24 material.
Did you even try to understand what I wrote? I didn't say that it's a "common problem", it's a conceptual problem. The rounding has been improved lately, so it's not as easy to trigger with some simple busy loops. Peter's patches don't remove limit_wait_runtime() and AFAICT they can't, so I'm really amazed how you can make such claims.
> All in one, we dont disagree, this is an incremental improvement we are
> thinking about for 2.6.24. We do disagree with this being positioned as
> something fundamentally different though - it's just the same thing
> mathematically, expressed without a "/weight" divisor, resulting in no
> change in scheduling behavior. (except for a small shift of CPU
> utilization for a synthetic corner-case)
Everytime I'm amazed how quickly you get to your judgements...
BTW who is "we" and how is it possible that this meta mind can come to such quick judgements?
The basic concept is quite different enough, one can e.g. see that I have to calculate some of the key CFS variables for the debug output. The concepts are related, but they are definitively not "the same thing mathematically", the method of resolution is quite different, if you think otherwise then please _prove_ it.
bye, Roman
Ingo's reply can be found here. Roman's reply to that is here and here
It's good to be the king :-)
Not yet, though they are on their way to being in the standard. As far as sumerian cuneiform, they are already in utf-8, part of the ancient languages section. ;-)
"One character encoding to rule them all."