Does apache still have a larger market share? the pure numbers are meaningless without market share info. That said even market share info is meaningless as its always going to be easier to hack a full website (especially those with user content, like forums) rather than a parking website (which ive heard account for a lot of IIS websites) or a single page hosting some stupid flash/silverlight stuff.
But in the earth coorinate system, were always in the same place.
People are quite happy to accept that we cant travel faster that c, but soon forget that all frames of reverance are all equal. There is no aether, no absolute position, no zero velocity, hell there aint much apart from acceleration!
Without commonality, there will be no portable 3rd party apps etc. The linux API is actually fairly stable, the fragmentation is only in terms of libraries, but as most of the libraries that the phones ship with will be GPL this doesnt even matter. Either your program is GPLd which means it can be recompiled, repackaged easily for each platform, or its not and has to use its own libraries (you can always compile against static libraries even if your GPLd) then your program will be portable irrespective of platform.
Why google matters is advertising, while linux can beat windows/mac in any competition (there are easier to use distros than windows, and nicer looking ones than mac), because there is no well known player advertising it, people dont even know it exists. Sure the Open Handset allience is a good idea, but id never heard of it until the gphone started getting hype.
Player A, has uber shotgun Player B, only has a rocket launcher Player A camps in a small room to shotgun player B as he walks in. Now wouldn't it be much cooler if player B, blew a hole in the wall then knifed player A in the back for being such a camping pussy.
sniper A, has been owning noob B for 20 minutes from the top of a tall building. noob B, finds an explosive. Dont we all want to see noob B, blow up the tall building and sniper A fall to his 'doom'
If you make levels dynamic, then you make multiplayer games much more enjoyable. Player 'i have no life and learnt every level perfectly', loses his edge and actual skill / tactics come back into the game. Last time i gamed one of the most interesting games i played allowed players to build their bases before the rounds. The building was very limited, but it added a whole level of dynamic-ness that meant you could play the same level much more before it got repetitive. IMO the TFC levels where there were demo-man destroyable shortcuts where the best ones as some had completely different tactics before/after destruction.
*dreams of a day when every wall can be destroyed, every floor can be craters, every level can collapse.
Ive had a teacher ruin my chances of getting into cambridge, and because he was a good bullshiter ofsted didnt pick up that he was shit. I can imagine the same thing happens with the police, LA riots anybody? how many times do rouge policemen get to ruin the name of the police force, when a site like this can allow them top be weeded out? sure it will be abused by some idiots but as a moderated
Delta Air Lines, Inc. (NYSE: DAL) is a United States airline[1]. Delta operates an expansive domestic and international network, spanning North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean. If you fly to Europe, you do business in Europe, your subjected to European regulations.
Its not a trade war, the EU just believes that companies should be regulated, something America clearly believes in too (or are you going to argue against minimum wage & for monopolies). Its just that the EU sets a bar that benefits its citizens ( customers) more than it benefits the owners of companies.
Your assuming that planets don't have the same elementary make up, while this is true, it can be assumed that any planet in the earth region of a system will be made up with similar metals to earth. So no planet is going to need our resources unless they're at war.
The power problem has plauged wikipedia for a while, as the english wikipedia is the biggest (And most american friendly), it has affected en.wikipedia.org first but will spread to other, spanish>german>etc. This is why on every wikipedia post i bring up the idea of a 'modular wikipedia, a multi-wiki, unfortunatly i got drunk protesting against the SOCPA zone today so if youcare look up my other wikipedia posts.
yes, money is a great invention, like the wheel or the semiconductor. it makes your world a better place the semiconductor and the wheel wernt invented to make money, the same way that the lorentz transformations wern't, general relativity wasnt solved for money, newton never got paid to drop apples. While i agree that money can be an expression of human desire, money has never been a driving force for real invention, thats always been curiosity (or in the case of the wheel, not wanting to starve)
There will be startups that will focus on just music or movies or just on mathematics and provide a better experience per the negatives of advertising. Most people end up in Wikipedia through google searches and it won't take long for the wikipedia articles to go stale while the contributors move somewhere else. Whats wrong with that? it will take the power away from the notability nazis. Sure it will be harder to get sidetracked and waste time, but it will fix the personality crisis wikipedia faces (does it want lots of information, or does it want to be an encyclopedia). A multiwiki (a portal to mulitple free content wikis, would easily make browsing multiple wiki's feal the same as browsing just the one)
A single wiki makes abuse of power much easier, but if there were multiple wikis, a science editor with a problem with comics, cant ruin the wiki for everybody. The multiwiki would allow for an enphasis on the organisation, while the wikis would concentrate on the content, no 1 person in control, if any one wiki starts to go wrong, it can easily be swapped out.
The science wiki starts getting a bit too unreliable, the multiwiki starts using an alternative science wiki. The multi wiki starts making bad choices, the switch to a better multiwiki doesnt affect the content on the separate wikis, etc.
The anon post was me, before somebody thinks im copying
Mod parent +1 ownage. the pretence that apple are open source is wearing thing, they fullfill thier legal requirment, just as microsoft do, but only help out OSS where it benifits them.
A sdk with that many legal restrictions is a pain for users and developers, symbian is much more open and thats from nokia (nokia fan boys, i dont know much about the company, rarely go round flashing 'open source credentials'). What pisses me off with apple, isnt that they arn't opensource, theyres a place for companies like that, its that people go round pretending their open, when there not, its pissed me off since the webkit fork (sorry but two years to open a CVS), it pissed me off with their inadvertent admittion of hidden APIs (they let slip while defending the legitimate use of variables that inadvertently crippled FF), and its pissing me of with this.
I have nothing against apple, but pretending their open is like saying Avril Laveinge is rock
do you even know what the SoC is? it has nothing to do with Google Office, they program for pretty much any OSS project that will take them, lame or interesting.
1) a gaming PC is substantially more expensive than a console is it really at £ 400-700 every 5 years, i figure if i gamed i could keep a system pretty cuting edge with that sort of money, 1st build would let you keep all your periferals & most internals (HDD, CD, sound card, PSU), so £400-700 for a new mobo, cpu, gfx card, then the next gen will probably be on the same mobo cycle so i could go SLI or save abit and use a grand in 2 gens time.
ive never had a driver problem either 3,4 & the rest i agree with tho
he was obsessed with empirically verifying beliefs he had constructed, which is not at all scientific. And how exactly does that detract from his science, the whole point of science is to construct theories, then gather data to prove/falsify these theories, then refine the theory and start again.
When astronomers looked at the orbit of mercury. Although not definitive when no aether was found, was pretty much the moment it started being considered flawed.
Zen is not a theory, it's a belief system. But thats my point,
Belief in myths and superstitions shows a lack of rational thought and critical thinking, and suggests a poor understanding of the scientific method. Belief in a superstition until it is proven correct/false isn't a flaw in a scientist its merely accepting that haven't explained everything...yet, and that other beliefs are possible.
On the assumption that there should be a single, reasonable model where both gravity and quantum mechanics coexist at all scales, people search for such a model. It is not, however, held as an a priori fact that we must be able to find such a model. Not held as priori fact, but it is held as a firm belief of many scientists.
It is in fact proper scientific thinking to not take as correct a proposition until it is proven correct. Astrology fails to make falsifiable claims that are not shown to be false; as such, it is not correct. It is also proper scientific thinking not to take a proposition as false until proven false. Astrology's failure to make falsifiable claims doesn't make it false ( it does mean its not a valid scientific theory). BTW some astrologers have made falsifiable claims, but they were always found false, but Eskild Rasmussen's study makes falsifiable claims that have not been falsified...yet.
Your explanation of quantum entanglement shows that, at least, you don't understand quantum entanglement. Many things, particularly quantum mechanics, seem strange, mysterious, and unlikely if incorrectly described. Your free to explain it better/direct me to texts which contradict my opinion of it which i got from reading textbooks & general science books (e.g the QED for beginners (or w/e it was called) lectures by feyman). If quantum entanglement can be explained in a way that makes sense then why did the great minds of the 20th century try so hard to find a way of getting quantum mechanics to work without it (EPR). Dont get me wrong i know that quantum entanglement is empirically backed up, whereas astrology isn't (but that doesn't mean it cant be).
For clarity i am a scientist (or at least instead to be) but i don't see the belief that everything can be explained by science, meaning that 'unscientific' stuff, like astrology (although i do think astrology is wrong), hypnosis, twins having a 'link', cant possibly be true.
The "belief" that it's possible to model the behavior of the universe based on empirical observation is, appropriately, one that's quite explainable -- it's borne out by empirical testing. But what about when empirical observations on one scale don't match with ones on a different scale, what is there to say that they should obey the same set of laws?
Thinking that astrology (which has no physical basis or empirical support) looks "normal" compared to quantum entanglement (which has plenty of empirical support) How does the amount of empirical evidence, change weather a theory looks reasonable or not, note i said nothing about being correct.
Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs in which knowledge of the apparent relative positions of celestial bodies and related details is held to be useful in understanding, interpreting, and organizing information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters.
So if im being picky, deciding not to try to learn to program on a day when there is a high chance of cosmic rays hitting earth, would be astrology.
Saying something is wrong until proved correct, is not correct scientific method, until all possible astrological theories are proved wrong including, but not limited to, Eskild Rasmussen's study, then saying that astrology is wrong is premature.
how is quantum entanglement "2 particles can be connected instantaneously over an infinite distance, due to an undetectable connection" that different to zen and such theories.
The problem is that while gamers are quite happy to dish out 300-400 or more (my bro always had 2 of each gen of console so thats 600-700) every 6 years, on buying a new console, they don't realize they should do the same with a PC and then complain that games are getting harder to run. For £600 you can build a system capable of playing most midlevel games (*i did this before the dollar crashed so £600 is maybe $800), if i could install windows on it, it would still play current games fairly well. If i spent £600 to upgrade id be able to play current gen games too.
Perhaps they should start marketing generations for pc games!
Slashdot Mirror
mod parent up usview != worldview. america is pretty far right, compared to almost anywhere.
i thought it was the vector product of linux and windows! when they finally include bsd do they get the volume of a the Internets?
Does apache still have a larger market share? the pure numbers are meaningless without market share info. That said even market share info is meaningless as its always going to be easier to hack a full website (especially those with user content, like forums) rather than a parking website (which ive heard account for a lot of IIS websites) or a single page hosting some stupid flash/silverlight stuff.
But in the earth coorinate system, were always in the same place.
People are quite happy to accept that we cant travel faster that c, but soon forget that all frames of reverance are all equal. There is no aether, no absolute position, no zero velocity, hell there aint much apart from acceleration!
Without commonality, there will be no portable 3rd party apps etc.
The linux API is actually fairly stable, the fragmentation is only in terms of libraries, but as most of the libraries that the phones ship with will be GPL this doesnt even matter. Either your program is GPLd which means it can be recompiled, repackaged easily for each platform, or its not and has to use its own libraries (you can always compile against static libraries even if your GPLd) then your program will be portable irrespective of platform.
Why google matters is advertising, while linux can beat windows/mac in any competition (there are easier to use distros than windows, and nicer looking ones than mac), because there is no well known player advertising it, people dont even know it exists. Sure the Open Handset allience is a good idea, but id never heard of it until the gphone started getting hype.
suxxors, wind... i cant do this anymore...*bang*
but he develops openGL games, this is like blaming an F1 driver for endorsing wheels that don't suit your motorbike.
Player A, has uber shotgun
Player B, only has a rocket launcher
Player A camps in a small room to shotgun player B as he walks in.
Now wouldn't it be much cooler if player B, blew a hole in the wall then knifed player A in the back for being such a camping pussy.
sniper A, has been owning noob B for 20 minutes from the top of a tall building.
noob B, finds an explosive. Dont we all want to see noob B, blow up the tall building and sniper A fall to his 'doom'
If you make levels dynamic, then you make multiplayer games much more enjoyable. Player 'i have no life and learnt every level perfectly', loses his edge and actual skill / tactics come back into the game. Last time i gamed one of the most interesting games i played allowed players to build their bases before the rounds. The building was very limited, but it added a whole level of dynamic-ness that meant you could play the same level much more before it got repetitive. IMO the TFC levels where there were demo-man destroyable shortcuts where the best ones as some had completely different tactics before/after destruction.
*dreams of a day when every wall can be destroyed, every floor can be craters, every level can collapse.
Ive had a teacher ruin my chances of getting into cambridge, and because he was a good bullshiter ofsted didnt pick up that he was shit.
I can imagine the same thing happens with the police, LA riots anybody? how many times do rouge policemen get to ruin the name of the police force, when a site like this can allow them top be weeded out?
sure it will be abused by some idiots but as a moderated
TO: osama.bin.laden@cave.net
Doesn't Dick Cheney have a pace maker?
your sincerely, a helpful Brit.
Its not a trade war, the EU just believes that companies should be regulated, something America clearly believes in too (or are you going to argue against minimum wage & for monopolies). Its just that the EU sets a bar that benefits its citizens ( customers) more than it benefits the owners of companies.
Your assuming that planets don't have the same elementary make up, while this is true, it can be assumed that any planet in the earth region of a system will be made up with similar metals to earth. So no planet is going to need our resources unless they're at war.
The power problem has plauged wikipedia for a while, as the english wikipedia is the biggest (And most american friendly), it has affected en.wikipedia.org first but will spread to other, spanish>german>etc. This is why on every wikipedia post i bring up the idea of a 'modular wikipedia, a multi-wiki, unfortunatly i got drunk protesting against the SOCPA zone today so if youcare look up my other wikipedia posts.
While i agree that money can be an expression of human desire, money has never been a driving force for real invention, thats always been curiosity (or in the case of the wheel, not wanting to starve)
A single wiki makes abuse of power much easier, but if there were multiple wikis, a science editor with a problem with comics, cant ruin the wiki for everybody. The multiwiki would allow for an enphasis on the organisation, while the wikis would concentrate on the content, no 1 person in control, if any one wiki starts to go wrong, it can easily be swapped out.
The science wiki starts getting a bit too unreliable, the multiwiki starts using an alternative science wiki. The multi wiki starts making bad choices, the switch to a better multiwiki doesnt affect the content on the separate wikis, etc.
The anon post was me, before somebody thinks im copying
Mod parent +1 ownage.
the pretence that apple are open source is wearing thing, they fullfill thier legal requirment, just as microsoft do, but only help out OSS where it benifits them.
A sdk with that many legal restrictions is a pain for users and developers, symbian is much more open and thats from nokia (nokia fan boys, i dont know much about the company, rarely go round flashing 'open source credentials'). What pisses me off with apple, isnt that they arn't opensource, theyres a place for companies like that, its that people go round pretending their open, when there not, its pissed me off since the webkit fork (sorry but two years to open a CVS), it pissed me off with their inadvertent admittion of hidden APIs (they let slip while defending the legitimate use of variables that inadvertently crippled FF), and its pissing me of with this.
I have nothing against apple, but pretending their open is like saying Avril Laveinge is rock
do you even know what the SoC is? it has nothing to do with Google Office, they program for pretty much any OSS project that will take them, lame or interesting.
1st build would let you keep all your periferals & most internals (HDD, CD, sound card, PSU), so £400-700 for a new mobo, cpu, gfx card,
then the next gen will probably be on the same mobo cycle so i could go SLI or save abit and use a grand in 2 gens time.
ive never had a driver problem either
3,4 & the rest i agree with tho
yeah its a pro-microsoft crowd in here tonight.
*throws a chair at you*
"whats your GPL gunna do to protect you from that!"
This Slashdot article is not in compliance with the new notability act http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/10/0057210 , it will be erased shortly.
When astronomers looked at the orbit of mercury.
Although not definitive when no aether was found, was pretty much the moment it started being considered flawed.
For clarity i am a scientist (or at least instead to be) but i don't see the belief that everything can be explained by science, meaning that 'unscientific' stuff, like astrology (although i do think astrology is wrong), hypnosis, twins having a 'link', cant possibly be true.
So if im being picky, deciding not to try to learn to program on a day when there is a high chance of cosmic rays hitting earth, would be astrology.
Saying something is wrong until proved correct, is not correct scientific method, until all possible astrological theories are proved wrong including, but not limited to, Eskild Rasmussen's study, then saying that astrology is wrong is premature.
how is quantum entanglement "2 particles can be connected instantaneously over an infinite distance, due to an undetectable connection" that different to zen and such theories.
The problem is that while gamers are quite happy to dish out 300-400 or more (my bro always had 2 of each gen of console so thats 600-700) every 6 years, on buying a new console, they don't realize they should do the same with a PC and then complain that games are getting harder to run. For £600 you can build a system capable of playing most midlevel games (*i did this before the dollar crashed so £600 is maybe $800), if i could install windows on it, it would still play current games fairly well. If i spent £600 to upgrade id be able to play current gen games too.
Perhaps they should start marketing generations for pc games!