The premise was really interesting and held a lot of promise, but I just couldn't get interested in the plot.
That's rather the problem for a visual adaptation. They aren't really plot driven. The plot is just an excuse to watch the characters grow. The first three are little studies of three aspects of becoming adult (responsibility, identity, mortality).
The fourth never spoke to me, and I haven't yet read the fourth.
I can't imagine them manageing to recreate that when the temptation to jump at magic battles with dragons is there.
I only see this kind of concrete being used as part of a specific decoration or artistic scheme.
If they can make it on-site it could make solid light pipes whcih could make it easier to get daylighht around buildings because the pipes can be structural.
Strategic deterrant value of the ability to control the international cheese industry. The Swiss and the French would be eating out of your hands for a start.
It is possible to build a useful and generic authentication system without dynamic loading.[...]
Actually, I'm not convinced that an easily changable/extensible authentication system is a plus. Changing how authentication happens should be hard, most of the people who want to change how your aithentication works are the bad guys:-).
Compared to the amount of thought and planning that should go into a decision to allow an extra kind of authentication, the effort of, say, rebuilding the system is small.
[...]the stupid idea of dynamically loading modules in a security context.
Since I don't have any mod points today, ley me just add a hip-hooray to this.
Being able to dynamically change the authentication behaviour with PAM was put forward as a reason why making/(s)bin/* dynamically linked in FreeBSD was a good thing. Seems to me that avoiding that is a great reason why such things should be statically linked.
Or, that particular port of the Gimp could conform to the interface of that particular operating system.
As I understand the issue, it is not one of GIMP not conforming, but one of how a particular user things the GUI resources should be used.
It is equally plausible to see the gimp as one `thing' which should only waste one huge chunk of screen real-estate or as a collection of interacting tools, each of which should waste a huge chunk, so it can be easily brough to the front or whatever someone thinks a task bar button is useful for.
As I indicated, I thnk the fundamental problem is that the whole task-bar idea is designed for people who turn on their computer run one, maybe two, applications, then go away. In such a situation, eight buttons for the one app is not a problem.
I currently have around 40-50 `things' which would probably be assigned buttons on a task bar running (precise number would depend onf preferences, probably the clock would not get a button, but the xterms and browser windows would etc). This is my normal kind of work pattern, I haven't even felt the need to use the virtual desktop facilities of the window manager for years.
I see no reason for having eight taskbar buttons open for one app.
I see no reason for having a taskbar.
In any case, if your system won't let you configure things like this, don't blame the GIMP people. Complain to whoever gave you that taskbar and ity's logic for what gets a button.
Warehouse inventory. Instead of dragging around a laptop on a cart, you can carry this in your hand outfitted with a barcode scanner.
Why would you need a 1GHz processor to do inventory? A 100MHz processor would be over powered for such an application.
Same goes for all your other examples. Fort a field data recoverry tool you need a washing machione controler class CPU with a bloody huge ruggedised hard disk.
The real reason it needs a fast processor etc. is the stupid design decision to put Windows on it.
Any bucktoothed nerd bearing a copy of 'Illuminati' is harmless.
You seem to make the assumption that the government wouldn't come after people who were harmless. The point of a war on <INSERT CURRENT EXCUSE HERE> is to go after whoever gives the best easy-to-catch to good-publicity ratio. (with adjustments for campagn contributions of course).
Eg it's worth spending a fortune, and lives, to stop a bit of dope coming into the UK, but not worth anything to shut down the shops everywhere who sell tobacco to kids.
Everyone knows nerds are evil. They probably use the games as a cover to get together and plot how to write viruses which get past Microsoft's exeplary security!
fill a bin with 50,000 red balls and 50,000 blue balls. Ask a human to sort them all.
Not comparable. The job of a junk mail filter is to drop things I don't want to read. It is trying ot match my evaluation, not to match a semi-objective criterion like red or blue.
If I read 1000 messages and say which I wish I hadn't read, then I am 100% accurate by definition.
Of course, if they are really talking about a pure spam filter -- ie one which identifies unsolicited commercial email -- then they can be more accurate than me, but at an uninteresting, perhaps even counter-productive, task:
I may get unsilicited commercial email I do want to read one day. Almost happened once (I had inadvertantly signed up for it, so it was not really unsolicited, and I didn't actually buy the piece of kit they had on special offer that week, but was tempted). I also get stuff I don't want which isn't spam (notably email from virus infected machines).
The referenced study seems to be a very sloppy job from this POV. They don't define what their criterion of sucess is, and to the extent they put in a hand waving attempt it is clearly nonsense:
Because spam (sometimes termed ?unsolicited commercial email? or ?marketing messages?) is neither expected nor desired[...]
`Unsolicited' does not imply `not desired'. If they don't tease those two apart, they can't get interesting results for real world applications. Eg, someone mailing my work address with a commercial proposition may well be a very welcome unsolicited commercial email.
I really want to hear the e-mails and documents everyone around me are dictating...
You'd need something which picked up sub-vocalised speech. Combine that with a HUD.
Mind you, the pen idea is a dead loss. They need to put it into credit card or key sized chunks. People lose pens, but most are suitably paranoid about their wallets and keys.
Of course, if you are male and keep you keys in your front pockets, the first good DoS attack you walked through would qualify you for a Darwin award.
What makes you think the hardliners in Iran ever lost control?
Well, the fact that they felt the need to ban so many candidates is an indication that they thought they had lost some control and needed to grab it back.
It's not really `democratic progress' which was worrying them. Iran wasn't getting more democratic, it always had the democratic component to the constitution. What changed was that the voters (bastards that they are) started voting the `wrong' way.
If the west, and especially the USA, hadn't put so much effort into convincing the Iranian population to stand behind the hardline mullahs, the crisis would presumably have come earlier.
Slashdot Mirror
That's rather the problem for a visual adaptation. They aren't really plot driven. The plot is just an excuse to watch the characters grow. The first three are little studies of three aspects of becoming adult (responsibility, identity, mortality).
The fourth never spoke to me, and I haven't yet read the fourth.
I can't imagine them manageing to recreate that when the temptation to jump at magic battles with dragons is there.
I suppose they did relatively well with Dune (certainly better than the god awful movie), not so well with Children.
But Earthsea is subtle. I dread to think what they'll do with the dragons.
Indeed.
Everyone knows the tenth planet is Mondas, home of the Cybermen.
Don't come crying to me when you find you don't have any radioactive, gold, nail varnish remover in the house.
Go Go Godilla!
How much is a neck reddening operation these days?
If they can make it on-site it could make solid light pipes whcih could make it easier to get daylighht around buildings because the pipes can be structural.
Strategic deterrant value of the ability to control the international cheese industry. The Swiss and the French would be eating out of your hands for a start.
Actually, I'm not convinced that an easily changable/extensible authentication system is a plus. Changing how authentication happens should be hard, most of the people who want to change how your aithentication works are the bad guys:-).
Compared to the amount of thought and planning that should go into a decision to allow an extra kind of authentication, the effort of, say, rebuilding the system is small.
Maybe I'm just old and paranoid...
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Perhaps that anyone claiming `my whatzits encryption can't be broken' they are either idiots or crooks.
(well, there is the one time pad, but that would make for a VERY big card or the user having to memorise an unending sequence of random one-use pins).
Since I don't have any mod points today, ley me just add a hip-hooray to this.
Being able to dynamically change the authentication behaviour with PAM was put forward as a reason why making /(s)bin/* dynamically linked in FreeBSD was a good thing. Seems to me that avoiding that is a great reason why such things should be statically linked.
That's the problem with karma. The gods are over enthusiastic and have really bad aim.
As I understand the issue, it is not one of GIMP not conforming, but one of how a particular user things the GUI resources should be used.
It is equally plausible to see the gimp as one `thing' which should only waste one huge chunk of screen real-estate or as a collection of interacting tools, each of which should waste a huge chunk, so it can be easily brough to the front or whatever someone thinks a task bar button is useful for.
As I indicated, I thnk the fundamental problem is that the whole task-bar idea is designed for people who turn on their computer run one, maybe two, applications, then go away. In such a situation, eight buttons for the one app is not a problem.
I currently have around 40-50 `things' which would probably be assigned buttons on a task bar running (precise number would depend onf preferences, probably the clock would not get a button, but the xterms and browser windows would etc). This is my normal kind of work pattern, I haven't even felt the need to use the virtual desktop facilities of the window manager for years.
I see no reason for having a taskbar.
In any case, if your system won't let you configure things like this, don't blame the GIMP people. Complain to whoever gave you that taskbar and ity's logic for what gets a button.
"Are you now, or have you ever been, in posession of a sense of irony?"
Why would you need a 1GHz processor to do inventory? A 100MHz processor would be over powered for such an application.
Same goes for all your other examples. Fort a field data recoverry tool you need a washing machione controler class CPU with a bloody huge ruggedised hard disk.
The real reason it needs a fast processor etc. is the stupid design decision to put Windows on it.
Hm. Let me guess. Are you American?
You seem to make the assumption that the government wouldn't come after people who were harmless. The point of a war on <INSERT CURRENT EXCUSE HERE> is to go after whoever gives the best easy-to-catch to good-publicity ratio. (with adjustments for campagn contributions of course).
Eg it's worth spending a fortune, and lives, to stop a bit of dope coming into the UK, but not worth anything to shut down the shops everywhere who sell tobacco to kids.
Everyone knows nerds are evil. They probably use the games as a cover to get together and plot how to write viruses which get past Microsoft's exeplary security!
Of course, that was a long time ago, these days they would probably just have sent anyone suspected of having a copy of Illuminati to Guantanamo.
Not comparable. The job of a junk mail filter is to drop things I don't want to read. It is trying ot match my evaluation, not to match a semi-objective criterion like red or blue.
If I read 1000 messages and say which I wish I hadn't read, then I am 100% accurate by definition.
Of course, if they are really talking about a pure spam filter -- ie one which identifies unsolicited commercial email -- then they can be more accurate than me, but at an uninteresting, perhaps even counter-productive, task:
I may get unsilicited commercial email I do want to read one day. Almost happened once (I had inadvertantly signed up for it, so it was not really unsolicited, and I didn't actually buy the piece of kit they had on special offer that week, but was tempted). I also get stuff I don't want which isn't spam (notably email from virus infected machines).
The referenced study seems to be a very sloppy job from this POV. They don't define what their criterion of sucess is, and to the extent they put in a hand waving attempt it is clearly nonsense:
`Unsolicited' does not imply `not desired'. If they don't tease those two apart, they can't get interesting results for real world applications. Eg, someone mailing my work address with a commercial proposition may well be a very welcome unsolicited commercial email.You'd need something which picked up sub-vocalised speech. Combine that with a HUD.
Mind you, the pen idea is a dead loss. They need to put it into credit card or key sized chunks. People lose pens, but most are suitably paranoid about their wallets and keys.
Of course, if you are male and keep you keys in your front pockets, the first good DoS attack you walked through would qualify you for a Darwin award.
Why Zaphod Beeblebrox's second hand pen business was so profitable.
Well, the fact that they felt the need to ban so many candidates is an indication that they thought they had lost some control and needed to grab it back.
It's not really `democratic progress' which was worrying them. Iran wasn't getting more democratic, it always had the democratic component to the constitution. What changed was that the voters (bastards that they are) started voting the `wrong' way.
If the west, and especially the USA, hadn't put so much effort into convincing the Iranian population to stand behind the hardline mullahs, the crisis would presumably have come earlier.
Er, yeah. Given that the writer seems to think that makes sense, I wouldn't trust anything he writes. Ever.
Their first business model was to encourage a generation to steal and leech money from the them as they stole.
Their new one is to get those same people to pay for what they have previously been encouraged to steal.
Born To Lose.
The ``doPi'' of course.