I think it is the gnome-libraries (at least GTK+). Resizing in firefox on Linux is fairly jumpy (for page layout updates) and uses max CPU, while resizing in firefox on Windows is smooth as silk. Resizing in epiphany on Linux is *horrible*.
Epiphany uses GTK for the whole UI and the resizing is no faster when the the html width has reached the value of min-width, firefox on Linux uses GTK for (I think) providing drawables and double buffering - so with less GTK code running for layout of widgets it is faster. firefox on windows is dreamy, but I don't know if it bothers to double buffer there - so it could be partially down to double buffering, but I think the GTK+ toolkit is just plain inefficient.
Yeah, but for every robber who might one day kill somebody, there seems to be tens of family guys just begging for an excuse.
If you need a thrill, go bungy jumping or something.
I appreciate there can be times when one has to kill. But you must be prepared to face the consequences. If the law agrees that the person you killed was *not* invited onto your premises and they *did* appear to be an immediate threat (ie not fleeing while crying for their mummy and blubbering like a wet blouse) then fine, but I don't think "He tried to take my guitar" is a good enough reason to kill. Maybe he thought it was *his* guitar (since it looked real similar through your window) and that you had stole it from him - and since the police couldn't do anything when he reported it missing, he decided to break in and take it back. Unpleasant for you, but deserving of the loss of his life? Just be thankful he didn't think that *your* life should be forfeit for stealing from him (mistaken though he was).
If you are allowed to kill because you have judged him to be doing a wrong unto you, be prepared to be killed for just the same even when they get it wrong. That is why we have courts, they determine if a person actually *did* do something wrong, and so they must apply to people who own land too. Hell why not scrap the police and the courts and save on the Taxes - those post-apocalyptic movies like Mad-Max and 28 days later do look kinda fun.
> And everyone knows that "ain't" is only correct when it's used as the contraction for "am not."
That just ain't true. I isn't gonna argue over this. But the two words have become almost interchangable over the last couple of decades. Languages change readily when the speakers are liberal and accepting of other cultures. French doesn't change much.
There was the case of a farmer in England who was found guilty of murder after repeated break-ins to his home.
He had a rifle, and had told local residents that he intended to kill the next person that broke in.
Two young kids broke in and he scared them off with his rifle. Great. Robbers run, home and possessions in reasonably good order.
Unfortunately, he shot one of the fleeing boys in the back just because he wanted him dead (his home, person, and property had already been successfully defended - he just wanted to kill). So he went to prison.
What scares me is that even knowing that this was a man that wanted to kill people when there was no need, some national newspapers, and even more local papers supported him, and claim it is the right of individuals to *kill* in response to a nuisance (such as an unsuccessful break-in) if only it was scary - even if the danger has passed and they only want vengeance for the disrespect.
The question is, why are the other scientists listening to the media. Scientists should ignore media bullshit and go with the data.
Why are so many people so upset that the media ere involved. Who gives a fuck about the papers, TV and radio. Ignore them and get on with your life. I could go to the media and announce that Saddam Hussein ate my SHARP Zaurus, but why the fuck should anybody care? Until its proven, just ignore it and do something else.
I have a Windows XP dual boot. I tried burning a CD from Windows while running some compute and IO intensive VBA code. The burn didn't work. Maybe I was just unlucky (bad CD-RW drivers or bad nero build or something).
If you write some code, it is yours to distribute under *any* terms you wish. If you distribute it as a part of a work derived from A) your code under discussion, and B) somebody elses code, then, in order to have a license to distribute B as a part of the work, you must be distributing A along with the promise to license A under the GPL.
But you still own the whole copyright to A and can do whatever else with it too. just not along with B.
Indeed, the GPL mentions "preferred form" of source code. Some people would prefer to work on cross-platform code because it tends to be stricter and more portable in general (which is useful). But the distributed binary could be the compiled result of several different sources, one of which is the cross-platform version, the other is the windows only version. Does it matter which is offered?
"his project" would have to be legally incorporated to receive a donation. And even then, do you really think that's what they mean? And since you think its not so clear, you have an obligation to check what they mean and ask for clarification. If I go to a one off charity car washing do and I say "I'll donate my tool", does the charity expect to be able to sell it at the end of the day, or should they give it back to me. I think they should give it back to me, realising that the word donate has more than one meaning, 1) transferral of ownership, 2) gratis loan.
With intellectual property it is probably more complicated. Is donating code the same as donating the intellectual property associated to or communicated by that code. It gets complicated with the differences between patents and copyrights.
So I think your assumption that you own the copyright in a peice of code donated with a clear purpose is quite a stretch, and stretched principles tend to snap in court.
IANAL. Actual contents may vary in hue. Cheques will not be honoured.
Well, there are "sort of" non-GPL parts in that, on their own, the original author can release them under any license.
It is probably more accurate to state that distribution of a binary version of source derived, at least in part, from a work licensed for redistribution under the terms of the GPL must be accompanied by an offer of the full source (in preferred form) also licensed for redistribution under the terms of the GPL.
There is more to it than that, but that is the general idea of binary distribution.
Although I don't think patches to the build system would count. The information that you change in the build system may be present in the resulting binary, but as "art" which is copyrightable, I don't think that can be argued effectively.
Actually, they should have him distribute the binary to them first, check that it carries the required COPYING file or written notice of the offer of source code, then ask for the source for that software, then start demanding that he cease distribution if the COPYING file is not there or he won't provide a link to the source, or the actual source.
The fee for source is the reasonable fee for physical redistribution. That is the electricity for zipping, the bandwidth and electricity used to transfer. Also the labour charge for administration (receiving your request, logging it, and filing it).
If the redistribution is done on CD he can probably charge for lost computation time at some reasonable rate due to being unable to use the computer at the same time (The guy is using Windows right?), and the CD, packing and postage. You may also be required to pay duty.
In some jurisdictions, this may not be a private sale, and VAT/Sales Tax may be due - which means he may have to perform further administration for tax returns.
You know this could almost be classed as useful if only you'd provided a damned link. Why do the interesting posts that really get you going never provide a link. And to make it worse, it'll still be modded up.
The problem is the contribution to worldwide environmental damage due to the accelerated End-Of-Lifing of products that are otherwise good for 15 years. Products that contain large quantities of heavy metals that are not normally present in topsoil and freshwater.
IMHO we need to start designing application software like OpenOffice and Mozilla for clusters and get those old 486s shipped out to schools in developing countries. The bonus is more robust, cheaper solutions for the western coporate markets.
Machine translation once suffered from this problem, and foreign language tutors often still can't see beyond words (which is why you can't just get taught by a bilingual friend).
For example "screw" is a verb, and "up" is a preposition, but "screw up" is a unique concept (behaving as a noun, or as a verb). The concept can be put in the place of a verb as "screw up the computer", or wrapped around the noun phrase "screw the computer up"; but in both cases, it is the same "screw up" concept even though the two words are separated in the second example. Too often the words are seen and translated linearly, when they are really phrased and form a tree structure (or many superposed trees).
My apologies for forgetting the correct terminology for these concepts, it has been a while since my computational linguistics classes. If anybody can point me to a good glossary for these things, I would appreciate it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is the gnome-libraries (at least GTK+). Resizing in firefox on Linux is fairly jumpy (for page layout updates) and uses max CPU, while resizing in firefox on Windows is smooth as silk. Resizing in epiphany on Linux is *horrible*.
Epiphany uses GTK for the whole UI and the resizing is no faster when the the html width has reached the value of min-width, firefox on Linux uses GTK for (I think) providing drawables and double buffering - so with less GTK code running for layout of widgets it is faster. firefox on windows is dreamy, but I don't know if it bothers to double buffer there - so it could be partially down to double buffering, but I think the GTK+ toolkit is just plain inefficient.
I haven't compiled metacity, but I bet ./configure --help will tell you.
And knowing what you are doing probably only means watching the appropriate mailinglists for bug reports on using those features.
Somebody give this person a humour gland transplant.
Yeah, but for every robber who might one day kill somebody, there seems to be tens of family guys just begging for an excuse.
If you need a thrill, go bungy jumping or something.
I appreciate there can be times when one has to kill. But you must be prepared to face the consequences. If the law agrees that the person you killed was *not* invited onto your premises and they *did* appear to be an immediate threat (ie not fleeing while crying for their mummy and blubbering like a wet blouse) then fine, but I don't think "He tried to take my guitar" is a good enough reason to kill. Maybe he thought it was *his* guitar (since it looked real similar through your window) and that you had stole it from him - and since the police couldn't do anything when he reported it missing, he decided to break in and take it back. Unpleasant for you, but deserving of the loss of his life? Just be thankful he didn't think that *your* life should be forfeit for stealing from him (mistaken though he was).
If you are allowed to kill because you have judged him to be doing a wrong unto you, be prepared to be killed for just the same even when they get it wrong. That is why we have courts, they determine if a person actually *did* do something wrong, and so they must apply to people who own land too. Hell why not scrap the police and the courts and save on the Taxes - those post-apocalyptic movies like Mad-Max and 28 days later do look kinda fun.
Rednecks.
> And everyone knows that "ain't" is only correct when it's used as the contraction for "am not."
That just ain't true. I isn't gonna argue over this. But the two words have become almost interchangable over the last couple of decades. Languages change readily when the speakers are liberal and accepting of other cultures. French doesn't change much.
I've splashed myself numerous times in my life. It's quite invigorating.
Your family is just "material goods"?!
So how much for your wife? I've got a decent car I don't need anymore.
What about the postman?
There was the case of a farmer in England who was found guilty of murder after repeated break-ins to his home.
He had a rifle, and had told local residents that he intended to kill the next person that broke in.
Two young kids broke in and he scared them off with his rifle. Great. Robbers run, home and possessions in reasonably good order.
Unfortunately, he shot one of the fleeing boys in the back just because he wanted him dead (his home, person, and property had already been successfully defended - he just wanted to kill). So he went to prison.
What scares me is that even knowing that this was a man that wanted to kill people when there was no need, some national newspapers, and even more local papers supported him, and claim it is the right of individuals to *kill* in response to a nuisance (such as an unsuccessful break-in) if only it was scary - even if the danger has passed and they only want vengeance for the disrespect.
The question is, why are the other scientists listening to the media. Scientists should ignore media bullshit and go with the data.
Why are so many people so upset that the media ere involved. Who gives a fuck about the papers, TV and radio. Ignore them and get on with your life. I could go to the media and announce that Saddam Hussein ate my SHARP Zaurus, but why the fuck should anybody care? Until its proven, just ignore it and do something else.
I have a Windows XP dual boot. I tried burning a CD from Windows while running some compute and IO intensive VBA code. The burn didn't work. Maybe I was just unlucky (bad CD-RW drivers or bad nero build or something).
If you write some code, it is yours to distribute under *any* terms you wish. If you distribute it as a part of a work derived from A) your code under discussion, and B) somebody elses code, then, in order to have a license to distribute B as a part of the work, you must be distributing A along with the promise to license A under the GPL.
But you still own the whole copyright to A and can do whatever else with it too. just not along with B.
If your task requires good eyesight, then so be it. But my point was that it is irrelevant to the quality of the device.
Indeed, the GPL mentions "preferred form" of source code. Some people would prefer to work on cross-platform code because it tends to be stricter and more portable in general (which is useful). But the distributed binary could be the compiled result of several different sources, one of which is the cross-platform version, the other is the windows only version. Does it matter which is offered?
"his project" would have to be legally incorporated to receive a donation. And even then, do you really think that's what they mean? And since you think its not so clear, you have an obligation to check what they mean and ask for clarification. If I go to a one off charity car washing do and I say "I'll donate my tool", does the charity expect to be able to sell it at the end of the day, or should they give it back to me. I think they should give it back to me, realising that the word donate has more than one meaning, 1) transferral of ownership, 2) gratis loan.
With intellectual property it is probably more complicated. Is donating code the same as donating the intellectual property associated to or communicated by that code. It gets complicated with the differences between patents and copyrights.
So I think your assumption that you own the copyright in a peice of code donated with a clear purpose is quite a stretch, and stretched principles tend to snap in court.
IANAL. Actual contents may vary in hue. Cheques will not be honoured.
Well, there are "sort of" non-GPL parts in that, on their own, the original author can release them under any license.
It is probably more accurate to state that distribution of a binary version of source derived, at least in part, from a work licensed for redistribution under the terms of the GPL must be accompanied by an offer of the full source (in preferred form) also licensed for redistribution under the terms of the GPL.
There is more to it than that, but that is the general idea of binary distribution.
Although I don't think patches to the build system would count. The information that you change in the build system may be present in the resulting binary, but as "art" which is copyrightable, I don't think that can be argued effectively.
Actually, they should have him distribute the binary to them first, check that it carries the required COPYING file or written notice of the offer of source code, then ask for the source for that software, then start demanding that he cease distribution if the COPYING file is not there or he won't provide a link to the source, or the actual source.
The fee for source is the reasonable fee for physical redistribution. That is the electricity for zipping, the bandwidth and electricity used to transfer. Also the labour charge for administration (receiving your request, logging it, and filing it).
If the redistribution is done on CD he can probably charge for lost computation time at some reasonable rate due to being unable to use the computer at the same time (The guy is using Windows right?), and the CD, packing and postage. You may also be required to pay duty.
In some jurisdictions, this may not be a private sale, and VAT/Sales Tax may be due - which means he may have to perform further administration for tax returns.
If you obtain source to windows, make modifications and distribute the result, then microsoft finds out, you have two choices:
1) stop it and apologise.
2) give your code to microsoft.
If you obtain source to a GPL work, make modifications and distribute the result, then the original author fins out, you have three choices:
1) stop it and apologise.
2) give your code to the original author.
3) release under the GPL.
GPL doesn't infect your code, it just gives you a third option.
You know this could almost be classed as useful if only you'd provided a damned link. Why do the interesting posts that really get you going never provide a link. And to make it worse, it'll still be modded up.
The smaller the pixels the better, you just have your vector icons and text all display at the same physical size as normal.
What Windows XP can't do that? Damn, I suppose I'll have to install a Linux desktop then. Pity.
> So, when will you stop beating your wife?
The day before I first met her.
The problem is the contribution to worldwide environmental damage due to the accelerated End-Of-Lifing of products that are otherwise good for 15 years. Products that contain large quantities of heavy metals that are not normally present in topsoil and freshwater.
IMHO we need to start designing application software like OpenOffice and Mozilla for clusters and get those old 486s shipped out to schools in developing countries. The bonus is more robust, cheaper solutions for the western coporate markets.
Machine translation once suffered from this problem, and foreign language tutors often still can't see beyond words (which is why you can't just get taught by a bilingual friend).
For example "screw" is a verb, and "up" is a preposition, but "screw up" is a unique concept (behaving as a noun, or as a verb). The concept can be put in the place of a verb as "screw up the computer", or wrapped around the noun phrase "screw the computer up"; but in both cases, it is the same "screw up" concept even though the two words are separated in the second example. Too often the words are seen and translated linearly, when they are really phrased and form a tree structure (or many superposed trees).
My apologies for forgetting the correct terminology for these concepts, it has been a while since my computational linguistics classes. If anybody can point me to a good glossary for these things, I would appreciate it.