Yes it's a Mediterranean herb (Mandragora officinarum) of the nightshade
family with ovate leaves, yellowish or purple flowers, and a large forked
root traditionally credited with human attributes b : the root of a mandrake
formerly used especially to promote conception, as a cathartic, or as a
narcotic and soporific
You must be a lawyer. Of course the answer was technically correct, but then so is the statement, "Microsoft Internet Explorer is Linux compatible" because running IE does not prevent you from running Linux, even though you may have to go to great lengths to do so, possibly by using a different machine.
It was a disingenuous statement designed to get a commission and not to help the customer.
The product did have someting to do with Java, by the way, just not J2EE.
This claim was made by a salesman to a non-tech potential client at a company I was visiting. The product had nothing to do with J2EE. The salesperson's rationalization for his misinformation was that their product didn't prevent you from running J2EE applications and therefore was compatible.
These are all real dumb reasons, I suspsect that they just did it for the cool factor and it won't last. What's really needed is wireless in places where you have nothing else to do, like trains, subways, doctor's office waiting rooms, automobile service station waiting rooms, heck, watiing rooms in general.
From my understanding of FreeSWAN, it's not intended to connect many machines to a central point, for example a VPN for home manchines connected to a central office. It's intended to link offices together. So you should only have to install it on the specific machines that link those offices. If you're company's so big or disperse that you have thirty officies, then I guess you would have to recompile each kernel, though you'd be smarter to have identical machines and build the kernel once then distribute it to each machine.
We use PPP over SSH for our home/office VPN for Linux and Solaris. It works very well and since it was originally a skunworks project, we didn't even have to get IT to open any new ports since SSH was already supported.
You make it sound like Microsoft was just trying to support Java and mean old Sun took it away from them. That's not what happened.
The whole point of Java is platform nutrality. Even if Java were fast enough at the time, Microsoft would still want to add measures to ensure that Java apps written for Windows wouldn't run on other platforms, that's how they do things. This wasn't an example of Sun dragging their feet, it was an example of Sun not caving to MS. By adding a Windows platform specific API, Sun would have destroyed Java on their native platform.
Why would Sun want to encourage or even support the development of Windows only applications? Sun makes their money by selling hardware so Windows specific applications would negate the benefit of Java for it's creator.
.NET, simply, is a method for warming food items, such as grilled cheeze sandwiches, in the field and with a minimum of resources.
But.NET is more than that. The warming function, and.NET as an eintity, is only an intermediary point between language and reality..NET is constituted by the same sort of unitary traits that have been used to explain the "one" and the "one more". But this trait in.NET is not identical with the unitary trait, since in.NET we have a collection of differential traits. In other words, we can say that.NET is constituted by a set of signifiers -- for example, bread, cheeze, butter, etc. -- a set wich is finite. Each signifier is able to support the same process with regard to the subject, and it is very probably that the process of the grilled cheeze sandwich is only a special case of this relation between signifiers. The definition of this collection of signifiers is that thay constitute what I call the Other. The difference afforded by the existence of.NET is that each signifier (contrary to the unitary trait of the sandwich) is, in most cases, not identical with itself -- precisely because we have a collection of signifiers, and in this collection one signifier may or may not designate itself. This is well known and is the principle of Russell's Paradox.
Most Americans don't really hate the French, it's just an idea that's been promoted on insipid television programs which play to our ingraned mistrust of foreign cultures. We're a big country which most citizens never leave in their entire life, or if they do they're too busy looking for McDonalds to notice that they're in a different place.
The fact is that most Americans don't even know a single French person.
I see you have remembered some low points in French history. The implication seems to be that the Brittish and Americans have never done anything wrong in their entire history as nations. Is that your claim? Do you think the French somehow have a monopoly on this sort of behavior?
I disagree. If you've got XML configuration files you can use a generic XML file editor that uses the DTD of the file to understand the rules of the particular configuration file it's editing. Of course it won't understand the symantics.
You'll also find many tools to parse XML that will make searching and modifying XML files much easier and more robust than doing so with the standard grep/awk/sed/perl tools (of course you can parse XML with perl too.) Some such standard tool/library could be provided so that any application's configuration file could be read.
So why is it that he continually manages to irritate so many people?
I don't know, I like the guy. But I can tell you this, someone who's phil@phil.org and who assumes that everybody knows his opinion on RMS, "It's no big secret that I don't like Stallman", now that's a little irritating.
To be fair, if "Data" regularly told the ship what to do without uttering the commands, viewers simply wouldn't know he's doing it. Not because viewers are dumb (well, not exclusively) but because it would probably be unreasonably difficult to convey the transaction otherwise. Of course, the dramatic element be ignored either.
Consider this point also, why is it that many high level computer protocols (HTTP, POP3, IMAP, etc.) use ASCII strings? Technically, it isn't necessary and it is a lot less efficient. But there are many benefits to it, and there might be similar benefits in the future to spoken language interfaces between machines as well.
I had my experience with the "user friendly" world just last weekend when I had to suffer through installing software on NT. Admittedly, some installations were problem free and easy. The ones that weren't were nightmares, and I spent hours on hold for tech support only to talk to morons.
That wasn't my only experience with "user friendly" either. I also had the "user friendly" experience of "upgrading" a Windows machine and finding that I needed a new "user friendly" driver for some hardware. Only problem, the new "user friendly" driver wasn't free, it cost almost 1/2 the price of the hardware that it controlled. How "user friendly" can you get?
I didn't say that easy installs are necessarily worse (as you seem to suggest) just that when easy installs don't work, then they are worse. In fact, they may be impossible because the user has little to no control over what's going on.
User friendly is subjective. I found myself longing for what I consider the user friendly UNIX environment when I was using NT. I wouldn't reccomend UNIX to my parents, but then my parents don't pack their bags and fly to my house for the weekend to configure my new computers for me.
Also, as a developer who's written InstallShield scripts for work, I can tell you that it is one nightmare piece of software. Not that that has any effect on the user experience. Don't tell me I don't have experience with "user friendly", I've been using computers since before you were born, kid.
Aside from the fact that I absolutely *loath* InstallShield, a binary no-brainer type installation is only better if it always works. If it doesn't, you're often out of luck.
I just recently had to use Windows for the first time in about three years and I was amazed at how difficult it was to load up with software. Half the software packages I tried to install had problems. I called the vendor of the network card to tell them that their install failed. "Did you try un-installing then re-installing it?" I said that I did. "How many times?" they asked. In the two days it took me to get everything installed I think I spent 3/4 of the time waiting for the system to reboot. My vision of the painless life of a Windows user quickly vanished.
It could be a process or calculation that doesn't work or takes too long. The customer could suggest a better way to perform the work. If they do so, and it's a significant improvement to the product, then maybe there is some clam for IP ownership. But for me it'd have to be something that was non trivial and required genuine thought, and not something that the devloper would naturally have fixed in the process of finishing the product.
Perhaps the company providing the software doesn't have the expertise or experience in the specific problem domain to understand the problem as well as their customers. For example, suppose the fix requires a financial formula developed by analists working for the customer and which is not public knowledge. By providing that fix without compensation may not be in the best interest of the customer, as it may help it's competitors.
All mozilla windows share the same process, I'm not sure why but probably to make inter-window communication less difficult.
Also, if you launch mozilla/netscape while an existing instance is running it doesn't start a new process, it just attaches to the current one and opens a new window.
I got my parents a TiVO and they love it, they can't stop talking about how nice it is. But they're not tech heads, they think my computer monitor is a TV. I think it's a marketing problem.
Others have suggested that just one person have write access to CVS. That one person, probably Linus, would still review the code before checking it in. The benifit would come from knowing exactly what code was current at any particular time and also from having useful CVS logs describing changes.
Agreed, except for one nit. What's impure about RedHat? That they make money? RedHat's all GPL, that's what makes it "pure" for me. Maybe it's because it's too easy to install, and therefore runs the risk of introducing non unix users to the wonders of unix. I don't think that's something to worry about, in fact, isn't that the essence of world domination?
I know you aren't knocking RedHat really, but I don't like to propigate the idea that RedHat is somehow tainted.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it's a Mediterranean herb (Mandragora officinarum) of the nightshade family with ovate leaves, yellowish or purple flowers, and a large forked root traditionally credited with human attributes b : the root of a mandrake formerly used especially to promote conception, as a cathartic, or as a narcotic and soporific
Go and catch a falling star, Get with child a mandrake root
Donne
You must be a lawyer. Of course the answer was technically correct, but then so is the statement, "Microsoft Internet Explorer is Linux compatible" because running IE does not prevent you from running Linux, even though you may have to go to great lengths to do so, possibly by using a different machine.
It was a disingenuous statement designed to get a commission and not to help the customer.
The product did have someting to do with Java, by the way, just not J2EE.
This claim was made by a salesman to a non-tech potential client at a company I was visiting. The product had nothing to do with J2EE. The salesperson's rationalization for his misinformation was that their product didn't prevent you from running J2EE applications and therefore was compatible.
I think what you were trying to say is touché . And it's French, not German.
These are all real dumb reasons, I suspsect that they just did it for the cool factor and it won't last. What's really needed is wireless in places where you have nothing else to do, like trains, subways, doctor's office waiting rooms, automobile service station waiting rooms, heck, watiing rooms in general.
It's commercial version, Netscape 6 from AOL. It already has the spell checker.
From my understanding of FreeSWAN, it's not intended to connect many machines to a central point, for example a VPN for home manchines connected to a central office. It's intended to link offices together. So you should only have to install it on the specific machines that link those offices. If you're company's so big or disperse that you have thirty officies, then I guess you would have to recompile each kernel, though you'd be smarter to have identical machines and build the kernel once then distribute it to each machine.
We use PPP over SSH for our home/office VPN for Linux and Solaris. It works very well and since it was originally a skunworks project, we didn't even have to get IT to open any new ports since SSH was already supported.
You make it sound like Microsoft was just trying to support Java and mean old Sun took it away from them. That's not what happened.
The whole point of Java is platform nutrality. Even if Java were fast enough at the time, Microsoft would still want to add measures to ensure that Java apps written for Windows wouldn't run on other platforms, that's how they do things. This wasn't an example of Sun dragging their feet, it was an example of Sun not caving to MS. By adding a Windows platform specific API, Sun would have destroyed Java on their native platform.
Why would Sun want to encourage or even support the development of Windows only applications? Sun makes their money by selling hardware so Windows specific applications would negate the benefit of Java for it's creator.
.NET, simply, is a method for warming food items, such as grilled cheeze sandwiches, in the field and with a minimum of resources.
.NET is more than that. The warming function, and .NET as an eintity, is only an intermediary point between language and reality. .NET is constituted by the same sort of unitary traits that have been used to explain the "one" and the "one more". But this trait in .NET is not identical with the unitary trait, since in .NET we have a collection of differential traits. In other words, we can say that .NET is constituted by a set of signifiers -- for example, bread, cheeze, butter, etc. -- a set wich is finite. Each signifier is able to support the same process with regard to the subject, and it is very probably that the process of the grilled cheeze sandwich is only a special case of this relation between signifiers. The definition of this collection of signifiers is that thay constitute what I call the Other. The difference afforded by the existence of .NET is that each signifier (contrary to the unitary trait of the sandwich) is, in most cases, not identical with itself -- precisely because we have a collection of signifiers, and in this collection one signifier may or may not designate itself. This is well known and is the principle of Russell's Paradox.
But
Most Americans don't really hate the French, it's just an idea that's been promoted on insipid television programs which play to our ingraned mistrust of foreign cultures. We're a big country which most citizens never leave in their entire life, or if they do they're too busy looking for McDonalds to notice that they're in a different place.
The fact is that most Americans don't even know a single French person.
That symbol of liberty allows its citizens to use RU486, something this symbol of liberty doesn't.
I see you have remembered some low points in French history. The implication seems to be that the Brittish and Americans have never done anything wrong in their entire history as nations. Is that your claim? Do you think the French somehow have a monopoly on this sort of behavior?
I disagree. If you've got XML configuration files you can use a generic XML file editor that uses the DTD of the file to understand the rules of the particular configuration file it's editing. Of course it won't understand the symantics.
You'll also find many tools to parse XML that will make searching and modifying XML files much easier and more robust than doing so with the standard grep/awk/sed/perl tools (of course you can parse XML with perl too.) Some such standard tool/library could be provided so that any application's configuration file could be read.
So why is it that he continually manages to irritate so many people?
I don't know, I like the guy. But I can tell you this, someone who's phil@phil.org and who assumes that everybody knows his opinion on RMS, "It's no big secret that I don't like Stallman", now that's a little irritating.
To be fair, if "Data" regularly told the ship what to do without uttering the commands, viewers simply wouldn't know he's doing it. Not because viewers are dumb (well, not exclusively) but because it would probably be unreasonably difficult to convey the transaction otherwise. Of course, the dramatic element be ignored either.
Consider this point also, why is it that many high level computer protocols (HTTP, POP3, IMAP, etc.) use ASCII strings? Technically, it isn't necessary and it is a lot less efficient. But there are many benefits to it, and there might be similar benefits in the future to spoken language interfaces between machines as well.
So how much would you charge to kill your best friend?
Just as you assumed I had no experience with user friendly. You set the antagonistic tone, deal with it.
Also, it's interesting how your posts get moderated to "2" just as soon as you post, especially a post like the above wich really is off topic.
I had my experience with the "user friendly" world just last weekend when I had to suffer through installing software on NT. Admittedly, some installations were problem free and easy. The ones that weren't were nightmares, and I spent hours on hold for tech support only to talk to morons.
That wasn't my only experience with "user friendly" either. I also had the "user friendly" experience of "upgrading" a Windows machine and finding that I needed a new "user friendly" driver for some hardware. Only problem, the new "user friendly" driver wasn't free, it cost almost 1/2 the price of the hardware that it controlled. How "user friendly" can you get?
I didn't say that easy installs are necessarily worse (as you seem to suggest) just that when easy installs don't work, then they are worse. In fact, they may be impossible because the user has little to no control over what's going on.
User friendly is subjective. I found myself longing for what I consider the user friendly UNIX environment when I was using NT. I wouldn't reccomend UNIX to my parents, but then my parents don't pack their bags and fly to my house for the weekend to configure my new computers for me.
Also, as a developer who's written InstallShield scripts for work, I can tell you that it is one nightmare piece of software. Not that that has any effect on the user experience. Don't tell me I don't have experience with "user friendly", I've been using computers since before you were born, kid.
Aside from the fact that I absolutely *loath* InstallShield, a binary no-brainer type installation is only better if it always works. If it doesn't, you're often out of luck.
I just recently had to use Windows for the first time in about three years and I was amazed at how difficult it was to load up with software. Half the software packages I tried to install had problems. I called the vendor of the network card to tell them that their install failed. "Did you try un-installing then re-installing it?" I said that I did. "How many times?" they asked. In the two days it took me to get everything installed I think I spent 3/4 of the time waiting for the system to reboot. My vision of the painless life of a Windows user quickly vanished.
It could be a process or calculation that doesn't work or takes too long. The customer could suggest a better way to perform the work. If they do so, and it's a significant improvement to the product, then maybe there is some clam for IP ownership. But for me it'd have to be something that was non trivial and required genuine thought, and not something that the devloper would naturally have fixed in the process of finishing the product.
Perhaps the company providing the software doesn't have the expertise or experience in the specific problem domain to understand the problem as well as their customers. For example, suppose the fix requires a financial formula developed by analists working for the customer and which is not public knowledge. By providing that fix without compensation may not be in the best interest of the customer, as it may help it's competitors.
All mozilla windows share the same process, I'm not sure why but probably to make inter-window communication less difficult.
Also, if you launch mozilla/netscape while an existing instance is running it doesn't start a new process, it just attaches to the current one and opens a new window.
I got my parents a TiVO and they love it, they can't stop talking about how nice it is. But they're not tech heads, they think my computer monitor is a TV. I think it's a marketing problem.
Others have suggested that just one person have write access to CVS. That one person, probably Linus, would still review the code before checking it in. The benifit would come from knowing exactly what code was current at any particular time and also from having useful CVS logs describing changes.
We don't take kindlee to spellers 'round here. Take 'yer colege lerned spellin and git outta here, city boy!
Agreed, except for one nit. What's impure about RedHat? That they make money? RedHat's all GPL, that's what makes it "pure" for me. Maybe it's because it's too easy to install, and therefore runs the risk of introducing non unix users to the wonders of unix. I don't think that's something to worry about, in fact, isn't that the essence of world domination?
I know you aren't knocking RedHat really, but I don't like to propigate the idea that RedHat is somehow tainted.