is to raise the cost of computing. Your points are all very true. No scientist/engineer worth his salt is going to give up the ability to write his/her own programs. What this will mean is that the scientists , when they go out to purchase the new generation of processors with DRM capabilities but not use them, will be indirectly funding these hare-brained schemes. These purchases will be used to buttress the idea that people are buying and hence supporting DRM.
So basically, these guys have no idea about the implications of Open Source? That anyone can release modified versions of code, even if they don't like it?
It's not like they are morally obliged to fix any and every problem with their code.
RedHat needs to sell to corporate customers, who want a uniformity of look. RedHat is exercising it's freedom, granted by the Free Software licenses to make a product it's cusomters want. If you don't want it, don't be a RedHat customer. Tweak your own desktop, or use some other distribution.
If you look like Microsoft and Apple, they tie the user experience to the choice of OS. That Linux allows us to choose, is exactly what makes Free Software good. If you don't agree with RedHat, at least learn to respect that their decisions. They have been contributing code, and good software so far. At least LET them exercise their freedom to please their customers.
There are plenty of people out there who look the part and have the talent enough to do it. Why does it have to be someone that you know and recognise from Hollywood? Even Christopher Reeves were unknown before he was cast as the Man of Steel. They could find someone before, they can find someone again.
And one of the ways to describe something is to mention its distinguishing characteristics that make it differ from other typical objects from the larger class of objects it is drawn from.
In other words, it makes perfect sense to describe things this way, establishing a hierarchy of objects with more and more refinements upon the other. To to this is an indication that the person is systematic in thought. After all, it is trivial to describe an object using attributes that it shares with all other objects in its class.
Imagine lurid story that begins this way: The man, having two legs and two arms, sat in the bushes hidden from his enemies. Is this a SF story about a men who do not have two legs and two arms?
Re:3500 year old technology
on
Awari Solved
·
· Score: 2
You read too much into the word "perfect". Perfect just means that if both players played perfectly, then it would lead to a draw. With that long a time, all obviously lopsided games would have been deemed uninteresting. Someday, we should be able to prove that some games are perfect.
"Reuters reports: Russia's space agency has scrapped 'N Sync singer Lance Bass's plans to join an October space mission after the U.S. pop star failed to meet payment deadlines."
Watch Lance get himself into AOTC: $-5
Watch Lance get rejected by Lucas: $5000
Watch Lance get on space mission: $-10000 Watch Lance's VISA bounce: priceless!
Of course it won't happen. The point is that there is great possibility of conflict, and it is in our interest to anticipate that conflict, and hopefully resolve it before it grows out of proportion.
Your insightful commment is appreciated. It is time to flame the rest of the whiners moaning about the "direction debian is taking".
Folks, if what is said is true, the problem is simply one free-loading individual who thinks he deserves more credit than he is due. STOP GIVING HIM MONEY, and MOVE ON. This has absolutely nothing to do with the "direction debian is taking". If anything, one should stop conflating a problem of one to a problem of many.
If Soft didn't encourage the volume demand for PC's, the Internet would still be an academic curiosity.
Two objections: (i) MS's role in encouraging the volume demand for PCs is only one part out of many others - OEM resellers, Intel, Lotus. Credit goes to the whole damn industry. (ii) The internet would be an academic curiousity - this is bad because...
I present to you a very stupid algorithm to check that Primality is in P: for i = 1 to sqrt(n):
if i divides n: n is NOT PRIME, stop. if loop runs to exhaustion, n IS PRIME.
Now, this simple minded deterministic algorithm has runtime O(n^0.5). Thus primality is in P. Why is this simple, elementary result unknown to slashdotters?
The true achievement of this paper is that a speed up from polynomial time to fast polynomial times. That primality testing is in P, is KNOWN FACT. All those people expounding on the ramifications of Primality being in P and its implica5tions for factoring are talking out of their ass.
You mean like the how Win95 "emulates" DOS system calls by rigging the INT21 interface? If that constitutes emulation, then what is running the PalmOS on POSE in a Linux window called? "Emulation". So everthing is emulation. Windows cloning the Apple interface is "emulation". It's not a question of definition of emultation, but rather if you recognise how different these issues are.
It does. If you can run a Windows binary using WINE on a Mac, then unquestionably, some emulation is going on, becuase the x86 machine instructions are being translated into Mac's machines instructions. But what WINE is, is simply a bug-for-bug translation of Windows API calls into Linux+X+SDL+.... Becuase Windoes Is Not an Emulator, this method of getting Windows binaries to run on Linux is not GENERIC. Even if someone were to port the Linux kernel to some other machine, WINE will not port. It's impossible. WINE is not an emulator.
Unfortunately, most of the slashdot crowd are kiddies who've never actually played with real emulators that you had described. They are unaware of the underlying CPU architecture, so they would not understand why a a Windows x86 binary would not run on Wine with Linux on a Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
is to raise the cost of computing. Your points are all very true. No scientist/engineer worth his salt is going to give up the ability to write his/her own programs. What this will mean is that the scientists , when they go out to purchase the new generation of processors with DRM capabilities but not use them, will be indirectly funding these hare-brained schemes. These purchases will be used to buttress the idea that people are buying and hence supporting DRM.
It's not like they are morally obliged to fix any and every problem with their code.
If you look like Microsoft and Apple, they tie the user experience to the choice of OS. That Linux allows us to choose, is exactly what makes Free Software good. If you don't agree with RedHat, at least learn to respect that their decisions. They have been contributing code, and good software so far. At least LET them exercise their freedom to please their customers.
There are plenty of people out there who look the part and have the talent enough to do it. Why does it have to be someone that you know and recognise from Hollywood? Even Christopher Reeves were unknown before he was cast as the Man of Steel. They could find someone before, they can find someone again.
Didn't you see tbe last movie were he FLEW at up into the sky after emerging from the telephone booth?
7*exp(a/4b)
It was :-) and not (-:. How ... ungauche! :(
In other words, it makes perfect sense to describe things this way, establishing a hierarchy of objects with more and more refinements upon the other. To to this is an indication that the person is systematic in thought. After all, it is trivial to describe an object using attributes that it shares with all other objects in its class.
Imagine lurid story that begins this way: The man, having two legs and two arms, sat in the bushes hidden from his enemies. Is this a SF story about a men who do not have two legs and two arms?
You read too much into the word "perfect". Perfect just means that if both players played perfectly, then it would lead to a draw. With that long a time, all obviously lopsided games would have been deemed uninteresting. Someday, we should be able to prove that some games are perfect.
The neophyte apparently has never heard of the word liberty, I guess.
Where does it say "infinite supply"? "Infinite" is not an easy concept - don't use the word if you don't know what it means.
"Reuters reports: Russia's space agency has scrapped 'N Sync singer Lance Bass's plans to join an October space mission after the U.S. pop star failed to meet payment deadlines."
Watch Lance get himself into AOTC: $-5
Watch Lance get rejected by Lucas: $5000
Watch Lance get on space mission: $-10000
Watch Lance's VISA bounce: priceless!
For everything else there's MasterCard.
I can see the world's problems just dissolving away.
Yeah. One sits in the house and enjoys these luxuries. The rest of the world's problems dissolve away.
Subject says all.
Of course it won't happen. The point is that there is great possibility of conflict, and it is in our interest to anticipate that conflict, and hopefully resolve it before it grows out of proportion.
to flame the rest of the whiners moaning about the "direction debian is taking".
Folks, if what is said is true, the problem is simply one free-loading individual who thinks he deserves more credit than he is due. STOP GIVING HIM MONEY, and MOVE ON. This has absolutely nothing to do with the "direction debian is taking". If anything, one should stop conflating a problem of one to a problem of many.
And if I was the user, who can disover and fix this error? Not me!
Two objections: (i) MS's role in encouraging the volume demand for PCs is only one part out of many others - OEM resellers, Intel, Lotus. Credit goes to the whole damn industry.
(ii) The internet would be an academic curiousity - this is bad because
for i = 1 to sqrt(n):
if i divides n: n is NOT PRIME, stop.
if loop runs to exhaustion, n IS PRIME.
Now, this simple minded deterministic algorithm has runtime O(n^0.5). Thus primality is in P. Why is this simple, elementary result unknown to slashdotters?
The true achievement of this paper is that a speed up from polynomial time to fast polynomial times. That primality testing is in P, is KNOWN FACT. All those people expounding on the ramifications of Primality being in P and its implica5tions for factoring are talking out of their ass.
They don't need to delete those files, they'll just upgrade the player so it wouldn't play them anymore.
There will never be a WINE for the Macintosh, even if Linux was ported to it. Why?
You mean like the how Win95 "emulates" DOS system calls by rigging the INT21 interface? If that constitutes emulation, then what is running the PalmOS on POSE in a Linux window called? "Emulation". So everthing is emulation. Windows cloning the Apple interface is "emulation". It's not a question of definition of emultation, but rather if you recognise how different these issues are.
It does. If you can run a Windows binary using WINE on a Mac, then unquestionably, some emulation is going on, becuase the x86 machine instructions are being translated into Mac's machines instructions. But what WINE is, is simply a bug-for-bug translation of Windows API calls into Linux+X+SDL+.... Becuase Windoes Is Not an Emulator, this method of getting Windows binaries to run on Linux is not GENERIC. Even if someone were to port the Linux kernel to some other machine, WINE will not port. It's impossible. WINE is not an emulator.
This is a ridiculous assertion to make. A question for the naive: Can Wine run on LInux for the Ma? Please explain why.
Unfortunately, most of the slashdot crowd are kiddies who've never actually played with real emulators that you had described. They are unaware of the underlying CPU architecture, so they would not understand why a a Windows x86 binary would not run on Wine with Linux on a Mac.