This would be a really useful feature to have and might be possible if X was capable of changing resolution without restarting.
What on earth are you talking about? Try running xvidtune; that will let you cycle resolutions on the fly. Most X setups will let you press C-A-+ or C-A-- to change resolution (+ and - on the keypad). Furthermore, UT on Linux is able to change resolutions in-game -- certainly without restarting X.
Anyway, since most games are "soverign programs" that take over your whole display, it makes little sense to have a seperate workspace for games (they will "create their own", so to speak, and set the resolution accordingly).
(I should point out, before I confuse anyone, that by "path separator" in my above prose, I mean the Java concept of "file separator", which is different from the Java concept of "path separator", which refers to how you separate elements in a list of directories.)
Actually, that code has the same problem. Since File.separator is a compile-time constant, it is replaced with the separator character for the OS you're compiling under; under UNIX, that's "/", and under Windows, it's a backslash -- the end result is that the path will work on the system you're compiling on, but not on one with a different path separator.
What you'll want to do to get the runtime-system-dependent path separator is System.getProperty("file.separator").
That wasn't gcc. That was the original UNIX C compiler. You probably want to read Reflections on Trusting Trust, Ken Thompson's Turing award lecture.
Basically, he hacked the C compiler to allow a backdoor for him if it was compiling login. He also hacked the compiler to produce a hacked version of the compiler if it was recompiling itself.
Your computer is open if you stumble across a specially constructed site.
That's a little like saying "an unlocked door is only insecure if a burglar enters through it," isn't it? Your computer is open and insecure; the existence or non-existence of special trickery sites is irrelevant, especially considering how little we can trust existing sites (some high-profile site gets cracked/subverted every few months at least) or even existing certificates (cf. the recent M$/Verisign debacle). The point is that having a broken security model is unjustifiable, and to claim that a breach this large is not a big deal because someone is unlikely to stumble across an exploit page is irresponsible at best and blatant shilling at worst.
by Durbin et al. (Cambridge) is a good bet. It's mostly about the central algorithms (Smith-Waterman, Baum-Welch, etc.) -- as a LISP wonk, you'll be able to implement them efficiently.
Speaking of "light" mode, here are a couple of questions/tirades:
* I've used light mode for a long time. One of my favorite things about it was that I didn't have to deal with a lot of the extraneous crap that shows up in "regular mode". That seems to be changing, though. Now light mode nags me to metamoderate (which it didn't do before) and now also features that stupid, Mad-Libs-like "this page generated by a <collective-noun> of <adjective> <noun>s for <user>" Not only are those both completely useless, but they take up enough screen space so that I can only see one story. I have no problem with <miniscule font>logged in as "user"</miniscule font>, but the total lack of regard for vertical space in "light mode" is irritating. If these are going to be the norm, please let me disable them in my prefs.
* Why doesn't light mode include link tags? It seems really dense that "putting mad libs and metamod nagging in light mode" was a higher priority than "putting link tags in light mode", especially since most text-mode browsers support link tags.
One last thing (that I realized when previewing this comment): Is it too much to ask to have slashdot convert angle braces to html entities (i.e. lt and rt) when posting in "Plain old Text"?
This is one of my least favorite Stupid Slashdot Misconceptions (tm).
The "QT Free Edition" is licensed under the GPL. The GPL dictates that if you wish to distribute a derivative work of a GPLed program (or a program linked to a GPLed library), you must distribute it under the terms of the GPL. The set of all GPLed closed programs is closed under the operation of derivative work creation.
The GNOME libraries (with the sole exception, IIRC, of the non-essential libgtop) are licensed under the LGPL, or Lesser (ne'e "Library") GPL. The LGPL allows linking with closed source code; it merely stipulates that you must re-link it with new versions of the library and/or supply customers with.o files so that they can re-link it themselves. (That's no big deal -- commercial UNIX software has been distributed in.o format for years.)
So, to recap: an LGPL library allows closed-source applications to link with it. It is possible to write closed-source GTK+ and GNOME apps. A GPLed library, on the other hand, can only be linked into GPLed software, so if you want to make closed-source Qt programs, you're stuck forking over the ducats to trolltech.
It is not in Sun's best interests to force Solaris application developers to pay royalties to trolltech for commercial applications.
What kind of video card do you have? Is it possible to get UltraHLE to work with an OpenGL card under Wine? I'd be interested to hear about your setup, thanks.
"Linux" now runs Linux binaries natively, without even a recompile! It seems that those wacky "Linux" kernel guys have managed to emulate 100% of Linux system calls. It's really slick -- they just run the user-level code in the binaries natively and then dispatch to the right part of the "Linux" kernel when a trap occurs, via an advanced mechanism called the "system call table" which maps Linux system call numbers to "Linux" system calls. Word on the street is that nerds everywhere are ecstatic at being able to run their Linux binaries on their favorite "Linux" system.
---
I guess that running Linux binaries is a pretty good way to get some applications on your hobbyist operating system, but does this young, closed-source OS have anything to offer us besides the retro Amiga-esque GUI and an emulation layer for 6% of Linux system calls?
Re:this is neither healthy nor a sign of life
on
Loki Goes Postal
·
· Score: 2
port games that are mod-friendly and have a thriving mod community! we already have Q3 and UT. how about Bungie's Myth or Myth II?
Myth2 for Linux has been available for a LONG time (see here), and is currently available for $6.99 from ebgames.com. It's a good game, and Loki has written an OpenGL renderer for it as well (the windows version is either Glide or software, IIRC)
The have fixed the link since this morning, so I flip-flop: If you want a link to Loki's book, look here. As they say, it's not yet released. I suppose that losing the clickthrough revenue is important enough to get them to fix an article, but blatant factual errors aren't!
Google's primary revenue stream, though, is from licensing their page ranking technology and other parts of their engine to other companies. That is what differentiates google from these other, worthless "portal sites" -- since they don't have to make money off of the service provided by www.google.com, I don't think they're covered by my indictment on the business model of some of these pay-for-inclusion (or pay-for-rank) sites.[1] Furthermore, as you imply (if I am reading you correctly), it is very difficult to confuse Google's little "SPONSORED LINK" box with an actual search-engine result. This only makes sense, though, because how would it be in google's best interests (of demonstrating their superior search-engine technology as autoadvertisement) if they diluted the sensitivity of their search by offering page-ranking for cash?
Imagine the absurdity: let's say you're some R&D manager covering a few groups and you want to index your intranet (which has documentation and interface descriptions for all internal-use and skunkworks projects, as well as docs for local tools and local mods to tools). What's the first thought that comes to your mind? I can bet my ass it's not "Eureka! I'll license the engine from www.dogpile.com! Failing that, I'll go for askjeeves.com or some other shill-engine!" Nope. Pay-for-rank and pay-for-inclusion have merely castrated the already-ineffectual engines backing the "web portal" sites. Even if they had any cred before they ran out of VC, they CERTAINLY don't now.
[1] IIRC, Altavista once sold "personal AltaVista" and "workgroup Altavista" products, but I believe they were unsuccessful and are no longer available -- I think they were discontinued shortly before AV went to pay-to-improve-rank as a business model. Mea culpa if I'm wrong.
All of those search engines are beyond irrelevant to almost anyone who does any more than the most casual browsing, and rank up there with the most absurd of the dot-com deadpool in terms of inefficacy.
Maybe AltaVista was worthwhile three or four years ago. Maybe five people have ever used Netscape or MSN search on purpose, but those are things one accidentally uses by clicking the wrong button in her browser. However, none of these companies has a real business strategy -- if they weren't selling placement, they'd be selling your personal data to x10.com. Selling placement is merely the third or fourth step on the road to fuckedcompany.com.
Seriously, SGI should have provided the plot line as well as the hardware: "See a successful UNIX hardware vendor, driven to irrelevance by demon possesion -- resulting in inexplicable plans to rely on M$! Watch in horror as it is destroyed from within by terrible university relations, the creeping spectre of mismanagement and a bizarre, not-quite-SVR3 operating environment. Will a hero come and save it? No."
Good point, and one that many people will sadly ignore.
\begin{rant}
No shit. I'm sick and tired of slashbots (and editors -- this means you, michael, Taco, and Hemos) jerking at the knee and whining about how Bush is going to beatify M$ at any possible opportunity. Sure, Bush isn't a good president, and he's downright bad on a lot of issues. However, Al "Corporate Whore" Gore would have been worse on this one. If any of these clowns would have bothered to look at vote-smart.org during the election, they would have noticed that Al Gore has spoken in favor of Microsoft on many occasions, hailing them as "great innovators" and "champions of the new economy". Furthermore, Gore even spoke at the M$ campus, hailing them and assuring them of his continued support. Gore also spoke out against the breakup, whereas Bush is on the record calling them a predatory monopoly.
Who's owned now? M$ gave over a million dollars in soft money to each party -- although it looks like Gore didn't need quite as much prodding, as he's been sucking their dicks since 1995 -- so these morons should get a clue.
\end{rant}
I guess I can stand to lose some karma for this if it's not in line with the "Slashdot Herd", but I've needed to rant about this for a while.
actually, the US State Department has done a pretty good job of collecting data on where the largest BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease) infestations are, thereby letting me know where not to eat beef.
Therefore, http://travel.state.gov is my preferred "data-BSE", although CNN is fine for less enterprise-class data requirements. For "data-BSE" metadata, I'd suggest you consult the USDA.
Imagine someone at a computer security firm telling the boss that he/she wants to become a "Black Hat" user.
Well, the OpenBSD zealots would have you believe that the reaction wouldn't be any worse than if someone at a security firm told her boss that she wanted to be a "Red Hat" user. *rimshot*
students own their homework and class projects, but if you're doing supported research, ownership gets much, much stickier. If a prof starts a new research project or gets a grant, the University will want at least part ownership of any patents/copyrights/etc. (presumably since they are providing the prof with an office and a salary and the notoriety with which to attract grant money). I know that many profs and students have carefully found ways around this (with and only with the aid of a lawyer), but it devolves into a huge Byzantine mess of red tape which anyone would want to avoid.
I would guess the situation is similar at most American public universities, but mine is a little more progressive than most in many other ways, so YMMV.
However, what in an intro to programming class could even be nontrivial enough to be covered by a license or copyright? There's a definite lower bound on the size of copyrightable software, and it's larger than most of the programs that most students write for intro classes. (Whether the code produced by intro programming students is worth disseminating is another matter which I'll leave to the trolls and cynics.)
Slashdot Mirror
What on earth are you talking about? Try running xvidtune; that will let you cycle resolutions on the fly. Most X setups will let you press C-A-+ or C-A-- to change resolution (+ and - on the keypad). Furthermore, UT on Linux is able to change resolutions in-game -- certainly without restarting X.
Anyway, since most games are "soverign programs" that take over your whole display, it makes little sense to have a seperate workspace for games (they will "create their own", so to speak, and set the resolution accordingly).
(I should point out, before I confuse anyone, that by "path separator" in my above prose, I mean the Java concept of "file separator", which is different from the Java concept of "path separator", which refers to how you separate elements in a list of directories.)
What you'll want to do to get the runtime-system-dependent path separator is System.getProperty("file.separator").
jad is pretty rad, though.
Basically, he hacked the C compiler to allow a backdoor for him if it was compiling login. He also hacked the compiler to produce a hacked version of the compiler if it was recompiling itself.
That's a little like saying "an unlocked door is only insecure if a burglar enters through it," isn't it? Your computer is open and insecure; the existence or non-existence of special trickery sites is irrelevant, especially considering how little we can trust existing sites (some high-profile site gets cracked/subverted every few months at least) or even existing certificates (cf. the recent M$/Verisign debacle). The point is that having a broken security model is unjustifiable, and to claim that a breach this large is not a big deal because someone is unlikely to stumble across an exploit page is irresponsible at best and blatant shilling at worst.
Heh. I thought they were from Holland, Michigan, not Holland proper.
</humor>
by Durbin et al. (Cambridge) is a good bet. It's mostly about the central algorithms (Smith-Waterman, Baum-Welch, etc.) -- as a LISP wonk, you'll be able to implement them efficiently.
Speaking of "light" mode, here are a couple of questions/tirades:
* I've used light mode for a long time. One of my favorite things about it was that I didn't have to deal with a lot of the extraneous crap that shows up in "regular mode". That seems to be changing, though. Now light mode nags me to metamoderate (which it didn't do before) and now also features that stupid, Mad-Libs-like "this page generated by a <collective-noun> of <adjective> <noun>s for <user>" Not only are those both completely useless, but they take up enough screen space so that I can only see one story. I have no problem with <miniscule font>logged in as "user"</miniscule font>, but the total lack of regard for vertical space in "light mode" is irritating. If these are going to be the norm, please let me disable them in my prefs.
* Why doesn't light mode include link tags? It seems really dense that "putting mad libs and metamod nagging in light mode" was a higher priority than "putting link tags in light mode", especially since most text-mode browsers support link tags.
One last thing (that I realized when previewing this comment): Is it too much to ask to have slashdot convert angle braces to html entities (i.e. lt and rt) when posting in "Plain old Text"?
This is one of my least favorite Stupid Slashdot Misconceptions (tm).
.o files so that they can re-link it themselves. (That's no big deal -- commercial UNIX software has been distributed in .o format for years.)
The "QT Free Edition" is licensed under the GPL. The GPL dictates that if you wish to distribute a derivative work of a GPLed program (or a program linked to a GPLed library), you must distribute it under the terms of the GPL. The set of all GPLed closed programs is closed under the operation of derivative work creation.
The GNOME libraries (with the sole exception, IIRC, of the non-essential libgtop) are licensed under the LGPL, or Lesser (ne'e "Library") GPL. The LGPL allows linking with closed source code; it merely stipulates that you must re-link it with new versions of the library and/or supply customers with
So, to recap: an LGPL library allows closed-source applications to link with it. It is possible to write closed-source GTK+ and GNOME apps. A GPLed library, on the other hand, can only be linked into GPLed software, so if you want to make closed-source Qt programs, you're stuck forking over the ducats to trolltech.
It is not in Sun's best interests to force Solaris application developers to pay royalties to trolltech for commercial applications.
What kind of video card do you have? Is it possible to get UltraHLE to work with an OpenGL card under Wine? I'd be interested to hear about your setup, thanks.
Try "make bootstrap". I think this is mentioned in the docs, but it hasn't changed from earlier versions of emacs. I'm running v21 now.
_Writing GNU Emacs Extensions_, by Bob Glickstein, is excellent. O'Reilly publishes it; buy it cheap at http://www.bookpool.com.
"Linux" now runs Linux binaries natively, without even a recompile! It seems that those wacky "Linux" kernel guys have managed to emulate 100% of Linux system calls. It's really slick -- they just run the user-level code in the binaries natively and then dispatch to the right part of the "Linux" kernel when a trap occurs, via an advanced mechanism called the "system call table" which maps Linux system call numbers to "Linux" system calls. Word on the street is that nerds everywhere are ecstatic at being able to run their Linux binaries on their favorite "Linux" system.
---
I guess that running Linux binaries is a pretty good way to get some applications on your hobbyist operating system, but does this young, closed-source OS have anything to offer us besides the retro Amiga-esque GUI and an emulation layer for 6% of Linux system calls?
Myth2 for Linux has been available for a LONG time (see here), and is currently available for $6.99 from ebgames.com. It's a good game, and Loki has written an OpenGL renderer for it as well (the windows version is either Glide or software, IIRC)
http://www.eros-os.org
It looks like they last updated it on 6/9/2001.
Your request implies that some well-spoken, photogenic hacker exists. That may be the big problem to solve first.
The have fixed the link since this morning, so I flip-flop: If you want a link to Loki's book, look here. As they say, it's not yet released. I suppose that losing the clickthrough revenue is important enough to get them to fix an article, but blatant factual errors aren't!
You can find out -- the fatbrain link he gives is actually to the Loki book. Here is a fatbrain link to the book he actually reviewed.
Imagine the absurdity: let's say you're some R&D manager covering a few groups and you want to index your intranet (which has documentation and interface descriptions for all internal-use and skunkworks projects, as well as docs for local tools and local mods to tools). What's the first thought that comes to your mind? I can bet my ass it's not "Eureka! I'll license the engine from www.dogpile.com! Failing that, I'll go for askjeeves.com or some other shill-engine!" Nope. Pay-for-rank and pay-for-inclusion have merely castrated the already-ineffectual engines backing the "web portal" sites. Even if they had any cred before they ran out of VC, they CERTAINLY don't now.
[1] IIRC, Altavista once sold "personal AltaVista" and "workgroup Altavista" products, but I believe they were unsuccessful and are no longer available -- I think they were discontinued shortly before AV went to pay-to-improve-rank as a business model. Mea culpa if I'm wrong.
Maybe AltaVista was worthwhile three or four years ago. Maybe five people have ever used Netscape or MSN search on purpose, but those are things one accidentally uses by clicking the wrong button in her browser. However, none of these companies has a real business strategy -- if they weren't selling placement, they'd be selling your personal data to x10.com. Selling placement is merely the third or fourth step on the road to fuckedcompany.com.
Seriously, SGI should have provided the plot line as well as the hardware: "See a successful UNIX hardware vendor, driven to irrelevance by demon possesion -- resulting in inexplicable plans to rely on M$! Watch in horror as it is destroyed from within by terrible university relations, the creeping spectre of mismanagement and a bizarre, not-quite-SVR3 operating environment. Will a hero come and save it? No."
~wog
\begin{rant}
No shit. I'm sick and tired of slashbots (and editors -- this means you, michael, Taco, and Hemos) jerking at the knee and whining about how Bush is going to beatify M$ at any possible opportunity. Sure, Bush isn't a good president, and he's downright bad on a lot of issues. However, Al "Corporate Whore" Gore would have been worse on this one. If any of these clowns would have bothered to look at vote-smart.org during the election, they would have noticed that Al Gore has spoken in favor of Microsoft on many occasions, hailing them as "great innovators" and "champions of the new economy". Furthermore, Gore even spoke at the M$ campus, hailing them and assuring them of his continued support. Gore also spoke out against the breakup, whereas Bush is on the record calling them a predatory monopoly.
Who's owned now? M$ gave over a million dollars in soft money to each party -- although it looks like Gore didn't need quite as much prodding, as he's been sucking their dicks since 1995 -- so these morons should get a clue.
\end{rant}
I guess I can stand to lose some karma for this if it's not in line with the "Slashdot Herd", but I've needed to rant about this for a while.
Therefore, http://travel.state.gov is my preferred "data-BSE", although CNN is fine for less enterprise-class data requirements. For "data-BSE" metadata, I'd suggest you consult the USDA.
(Disclaimer: I use and like Red Hat)
I would guess the situation is similar at most American public universities, but mine is a little more progressive than most in many other ways, so YMMV.
However, what in an intro to programming class could even be nontrivial enough to be covered by a license or copyright? There's a definite lower bound on the size of copyrightable software, and it's larger than most of the programs that most students write for intro classes. (Whether the code produced by intro programming students is worth disseminating is another matter which I'll leave to the trolls and cynics.)