I'm very familiar with HP's printer drivers, and generally they don't make the driver itself available separately.
This is particularly true of multifunction (printer, fax, scanner) devices. I don't think I've ever seen an HP driver for a multifunction device that wasn't bundled into their 400mb piece-of-shit document management software.
It's been a while since I installed HP drivers, but the standard practice was to download the suite, unpack it somewhere, and dig until you find the inf and sys files for the printer. Then you can just install it manually.
The 640k bit is a myth, even. The limit was based on the limits of IBM's 20-bit addressing space. 20 bit addressing allows about 1mb of total addressable memory - 360k for system memory, 640k for applications. If the 640k saying was ever uttered by anyone, there is no way it applied to anything but that immediate state of technology, when programs topped out at 16k in size.
It had absolutely nothing to do with the limits of DOS, which is evidenced by the immediate jump in addressable memory when IBM moved up to a 24-bit addressing scheme. This allowed DOS to bump up to almost 16mb, though 640k was kept as low memory for compatibility purposes, and all other memory as high memory.
Any fool could see that the 640k limit would be a problem, just like the 64k limit was a problem before it, and the 4gb problem after we switched to 32 bit addressing, and Gates was anything but a fool in those days.
Even before 24-bit addressing was available DOS was working around the 640k problem with extended memory, which makes the whole idea that 640k was thought to be plenty simply idiotic.
Turns out nobody can ever predict the future of technology (except maybe Orwell, but no one wants to admit that).
Jules Verne and H.G. Wells did a damn fine job of it, better than Orwell. Nothing like the SciFi writers of today and their horrible predictions.
Some of their stuff was downright creepy accurate - Verne nailed stuff to the decade in some cases. Wells had air wars with heavier-than-air craft well before the Wright Brothers' first successful flight.
It was a space opera, of course they didn't go into the science of it. If they had delved too deeply they would have had to re-write the whole damned thing, because none of it makes any sense (the idea of the Deathstar itself is untenable, as is the city-world of Coruscant).
He's not saying any protons, neutrons, or electrons are destroyed when chemical bonds are broken.
He's saying that when you weigh all the atoms in a butane molecule individually (i.e. not in a butane molecule), and then compare the total weight against a butane molecule, the butane molecule will be very slightly heavier.
The difference in weight is the potential energy of the chemical bonds. Since since the energy in the bonds isn't doing anything (not even dissipating uselessly), it must take the form of matter, and add to the mass of the molecule. Energy is matter, matter is energy, it must be in one form or the other (i.e. you can't have energy that's not doing anything unless it is in the form of matter). Break the bonds, and that matter is converted to energy, and the atoms that once made up the butane molecule now weigh the same as their non-butane cousins.
So the GP says, anyway. I quit doing any sort of in-depth physics a while ago, when I finished that general ed requirement in college, and am content with the high level "Ooooh Neat!" stuff I see on the Science and Discovery channels.
That's not true, only the code directly utilizing the GPL'd library needs to be open-sourced.
So as long as your 1TB project keeps the portions that need the GPL'd code sanctioned off (in another binary, or a compiled library similar to Windows DLLs) from the rest of your code, you don't need to open source the whole shebang.
Now, if you include code that includes GPL code, you're absolutely right. But you'd have to be an idiot not to be able to find a way around that, and if the GPL code is so critical that it must be included, and you cannot re-write it yourself, then perhaps you shouldn't be complaining about GPL'ing the whole thing, given the amount if time/effort the GPL library is obviously saving you.
GPL only acts as a virus if you're stupid. If it's a 1kb GPL library, you should be able to include it in a way that does not violate the GPL nor force you to GPL the rest of your code. If you can't, then re-write the damn library on your own. If you can't, I can't imagine how you ever managed to get 1TB of code in the first place.
Tell me man, can i take BusyBox and include it in my little embedded $30 device, without paying some license fee to the main developer of the Open Software Busybox program???
Yes.
Since the rest of your post is based on a false assumption, it can safely be ignored.
Mmm... quirky = unreliable/unpredictable, cutting edge or no. Cutting edge is more likely to be unreliable or unpredictable until it matures, by which time it is generally no longer cutting edge.
Quirkiness is fine for homebrew stuff or experimental settings, but it is very, very bad in an enterprise setting in which reliability is important.
From my virtually non-existent understanding of this problem, it sounds like issues surrounding polynomial time are where the bulk, if not all, of the issues raised about the proof lie.
Unless you want to, you know, run a bank and stuff.
But yeah, totally voluntary.
It's like income tax is voluntary. You don't have to pay it if you don't want to, just don't receive any income! (Note that gifts of any kind, charitable contributions, and most other forms of assistance all count as income).
But when someone buys a pair of designer jeans instead of the Costco jeans, they are buying a lot more than jeans, are they not?
They are actually buying an advertisement.
Those jeans tell the world "Hey, look, I'm successful enough that I can afford to pay more for jeans that have no greater intrinsic value than cheap jeans." As such, expensive jeans always look nicer, even when they are purposely torn and ragged, while the cheap jeans are more sturdy and whole. They look nicer because they are obviously more expensive, not because they are physically better (they are often actually worse than the cheap jeans).
In other words, YOUR assessment of the market is ignoring information that the market is not ignoring. Just because a feature of a product is unimportant to you personally does not mean that feature is unimportant, or that purchasing that product is inefficient or irrational.
The same with your apple example. If there truly is absolutely no difference between the 25c apple and the $5 apple, nobody would buy the $5 apple. But what if the $5 apple is a fundraiser apple for a local charity? You'll get quite a few people buying the $5 apple, not because they think the apple is worth $5, but because they want to donate to that charity.
In that case, the market is being very efficient, even though if looked at without all the information it seems obviously inefficient and irrational.
A guy makes an analogy that isn't entirely congruent with the more popular analogy.
What's worse is it's actually a pretty accurate analogy, and is often used in network engineering textbooks when referring to bandwidth and the like (not packets though, obviously). But dumbass slashdotters who think they know better made fun of him for it.
His only real gaff at all was calling e-mail "internets", but lets be real here, he occasionally couldn't remember his own daughter's name. He was friggin old. In the scheme of things, that's not a big mistake.
Yet for that, and some misfiled paperwork (he was exonerated of all ethics charges), he was somehow the most evil man in the Senate to half of Slashdotters in spite of all the people he helped, and in spite of all the people in the Senate actively working against the goals of those same Slashdotters.
GCI is a large (the largest?) local cable/wireless/internet provider in Alaska.
GCI is the largest cable provider, but they are definitely not the largest wireless/internet/telecom company. That would be ACS.
Your lobbying idea is ludicrous though, GCI serves about 300,000 people, and being a local company, have very little stake in national politics. They might lobby the state senate (in fact they almost certainly do), but it's a far cry from anything national, and using Stevens for the state senate is a bit of overkill.
The more likely explanation is that, after 50 years as a major name in politics, Stevens has made a number of big-name (locally speaking) friends himself - enough that a high level GCI manager would send him out to a private lodge from time to time when he wanted.
I suppose GCI was grooming the CEO of EADS North America (a much larger company, btw) for a lobbying gig too, eh? Maybe GCI is going to be going into space sometime, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize Hurd saved HP billions of dollars, right? He turned that company around.
Frankly, $40mil is not a bad deal for what they got.
The only real downside is he acted like a dumbass and they had to fire him to save face. They still need his help over there.
I'm very familiar with HP's printer drivers, and generally they don't make the driver itself available separately.
This is particularly true of multifunction (printer, fax, scanner) devices. I don't think I've ever seen an HP driver for a multifunction device that wasn't bundled into their 400mb piece-of-shit document management software.
It's been a while since I installed HP drivers, but the standard practice was to download the suite, unpack it somewhere, and dig until you find the inf and sys files for the printer. Then you can just install it manually.
In other news: food quality matters less if you enjoy it.
If you recall?
What, were you in his war room or something?
Einstein predicted a lot of things (many of which he thought we'd never be able to reproduce) that we're only now proving to be true experimentally.
What's your point? It's still news.
The 640k bit is a myth, even. The limit was based on the limits of IBM's 20-bit addressing space. 20 bit addressing allows about 1mb of total addressable memory - 360k for system memory, 640k for applications. If the 640k saying was ever uttered by anyone, there is no way it applied to anything but that immediate state of technology, when programs topped out at 16k in size.
It had absolutely nothing to do with the limits of DOS, which is evidenced by the immediate jump in addressable memory when IBM moved up to a 24-bit addressing scheme. This allowed DOS to bump up to almost 16mb, though 640k was kept as low memory for compatibility purposes, and all other memory as high memory.
Any fool could see that the 640k limit would be a problem, just like the 64k limit was a problem before it, and the 4gb problem after we switched to 32 bit addressing, and Gates was anything but a fool in those days.
Even before 24-bit addressing was available DOS was working around the 640k problem with extended memory, which makes the whole idea that 640k was thought to be plenty simply idiotic.
Turns out nobody can ever predict the future of technology (except maybe Orwell, but no one wants to admit that).
Jules Verne and H.G. Wells did a damn fine job of it, better than Orwell. Nothing like the SciFi writers of today and their horrible predictions.
Some of their stuff was downright creepy accurate - Verne nailed stuff to the decade in some cases. Wells had air wars with heavier-than-air craft well before the Wright Brothers' first successful flight.
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!
It was a space opera, of course they didn't go into the science of it. If they had delved too deeply they would have had to re-write the whole damned thing, because none of it makes any sense (the idea of the Deathstar itself is untenable, as is the city-world of Coruscant).
He's not saying any protons, neutrons, or electrons are destroyed when chemical bonds are broken.
He's saying that when you weigh all the atoms in a butane molecule individually (i.e. not in a butane molecule), and then compare the total weight against a butane molecule, the butane molecule will be very slightly heavier.
The difference in weight is the potential energy of the chemical bonds. Since since the energy in the bonds isn't doing anything (not even dissipating uselessly), it must take the form of matter, and add to the mass of the molecule. Energy is matter, matter is energy, it must be in one form or the other (i.e. you can't have energy that's not doing anything unless it is in the form of matter). Break the bonds, and that matter is converted to energy, and the atoms that once made up the butane molecule now weigh the same as their non-butane cousins.
So the GP says, anyway. I quit doing any sort of in-depth physics a while ago, when I finished that general ed requirement in college, and am content with the high level "Ooooh Neat!" stuff I see on the Science and Discovery channels.
That's not true, only the code directly utilizing the GPL'd library needs to be open-sourced.
So as long as your 1TB project keeps the portions that need the GPL'd code sanctioned off (in another binary, or a compiled library similar to Windows DLLs) from the rest of your code, you don't need to open source the whole shebang.
Now, if you include code that includes GPL code, you're absolutely right. But you'd have to be an idiot not to be able to find a way around that, and if the GPL code is so critical that it must be included, and you cannot re-write it yourself, then perhaps you shouldn't be complaining about GPL'ing the whole thing, given the amount if time/effort the GPL library is obviously saving you.
GPL only acts as a virus if you're stupid. If it's a 1kb GPL library, you should be able to include it in a way that does not violate the GPL nor force you to GPL the rest of your code. If you can't, then re-write the damn library on your own. If you can't, I can't imagine how you ever managed to get 1TB of code in the first place.
Tell me man, can i take BusyBox and include it in my little embedded $30 device, without paying some license fee to the main developer of the Open Software Busybox program???
Yes.
Since the rest of your post is based on a false assumption, it can safely be ignored.
I thought it was confrontational as well (I kept thinking "Enterprise stuff is supposed to be boring"), but then I read the last line of the summary:
That's not only good news for companies, it's a really important step for the Linux Foundation.
So, yeah, it sounds like he's pissing all over the Linux Foundation, but he's not. He's praising them. Just not very well.
Yeah, the business about being at war with Open Source was just a misprint.
Mmm... quirky = unreliable/unpredictable, cutting edge or no. Cutting edge is more likely to be unreliable or unpredictable until it matures, by which time it is generally no longer cutting edge.
Quirkiness is fine for homebrew stuff or experimental settings, but it is very, very bad in an enterprise setting in which reliability is important.
Try RTFA, maybe it's in there?
Come on, seriously, it's a link to an opinion piece about Linux software, and you can't see how this applies to a news for nerds aggregate?
I mean, wow.
What are you doing here?
From my virtually non-existent understanding of this problem, it sounds like issues surrounding polynomial time are where the bulk, if not all, of the issues raised about the proof lie.
He also knows a lot about tea, and decided he makes more money by selling the shitty kind.
No no, I'm pretty sure he means stupid.
I feel the same way, but I pretend like I'm just ignorant when I read it. Makes me feel better. ;)
NP has an N in it
So it's not the same as P
Prove it.
Right, compliance is voluntary.
Unless you want to, you know, run a bank and stuff.
But yeah, totally voluntary.
It's like income tax is voluntary. You don't have to pay it if you don't want to, just don't receive any income! (Note that gifts of any kind, charitable contributions, and most other forms of assistance all count as income).
But when someone buys a pair of designer jeans instead of the Costco jeans, they are buying a lot more than jeans, are they not?
They are actually buying an advertisement.
Those jeans tell the world "Hey, look, I'm successful enough that I can afford to pay more for jeans that have no greater intrinsic value than cheap jeans." As such, expensive jeans always look nicer, even when they are purposely torn and ragged, while the cheap jeans are more sturdy and whole. They look nicer because they are obviously more expensive, not because they are physically better (they are often actually worse than the cheap jeans).
In other words, YOUR assessment of the market is ignoring information that the market is not ignoring. Just because a feature of a product is unimportant to you personally does not mean that feature is unimportant, or that purchasing that product is inefficient or irrational.
The same with your apple example. If there truly is absolutely no difference between the 25c apple and the $5 apple, nobody would buy the $5 apple. But what if the $5 apple is a fundraiser apple for a local charity? You'll get quite a few people buying the $5 apple, not because they think the apple is worth $5, but because they want to donate to that charity.
In that case, the market is being very efficient, even though if looked at without all the information it seems obviously inefficient and irrational.
It's right, those are great planes for trips to remote areas, and 99% of Alaska is a remote area.
A guy makes an analogy that isn't entirely congruent with the more popular analogy.
What's worse is it's actually a pretty accurate analogy, and is often used in network engineering textbooks when referring to bandwidth and the like (not packets though, obviously). But dumbass slashdotters who think they know better made fun of him for it.
His only real gaff at all was calling e-mail "internets", but lets be real here, he occasionally couldn't remember his own daughter's name. He was friggin old. In the scheme of things, that's not a big mistake.
Yet for that, and some misfiled paperwork (he was exonerated of all ethics charges), he was somehow the most evil man in the Senate to half of Slashdotters in spite of all the people he helped, and in spite of all the people in the Senate actively working against the goals of those same Slashdotters.
Frankly, a lot of the reactions here disgust me.
GCI is a large (the largest?) local cable/wireless/internet provider in Alaska.
GCI is the largest cable provider, but they are definitely not the largest wireless/internet/telecom company. That would be ACS.
Your lobbying idea is ludicrous though, GCI serves about 300,000 people, and being a local company, have very little stake in national politics. They might lobby the state senate (in fact they almost certainly do), but it's a far cry from anything national, and using Stevens for the state senate is a bit of overkill.
The more likely explanation is that, after 50 years as a major name in politics, Stevens has made a number of big-name (locally speaking) friends himself - enough that a high level GCI manager would send him out to a private lodge from time to time when he wanted.
I suppose GCI was grooming the CEO of EADS North America (a much larger company, btw) for a lobbying gig too, eh? Maybe GCI is going to be going into space sometime, eh?
Frankly, you're an idiot.