No. No it does not. His link actually says "an enclosure for sheep", but if you then go on to click the link for "-fold" as a suffix, it says "multiplied by (a specified number)". Twofold is doubled, because it's multiplied by two, but sixfold is only multiplied by six, not 2^6.
Great, so don't pay him for his post. But—unlike the slashdot "editors"—he's not actually asking to be paid for his postings, so that's kind of a big difference.
No. No it's not. Any vendor can, and several do support the format. That's the point of an open format! If it were limited to one vendor, it wouldn't be an open format!!
For a while, there was only one vendor refusing to consider supporting ODF. After all, an open format would put a serious crimp in that vendor's plans for world domination through inescapable lock-in. However, even that vendor has finally announced plans to support ODF in future versions of their software (support is already available through free third-party plugins). In fact, requiring ODF is very nearly favoring all vendors over none. Or something like that.:)
(Is it just me, or does the grass in here seem awfully artificial today, somehow....)
Total BS. If MSFT wanted to adhere to standards, they would. Trouble is, they don't care.
It's not that they don't care--it's that adhering to standards would undermine their business plan. So they compromise, and implement the minimal amount of a standard that they think they can to get people to stop whining, while carefully stopping short of implementing enough to create a level playing field and allowing web developers (in this case) to benefit from the full power of those existing standards.
Ha ha ha, that's a good one! Man, you're funny!...Oh, wait, you're serious? Wow, that's just sad.:p;)
Nah, seriously, to each their own, but I ran Slackware back when it was just about the only available option, and there's not enough money in the world to pay me to go back.
Anyway, Slackware and Debian are pretty much exactly the same age, if you count from when the projects started. Debian took quite a bit longer to reach 1.0, but then, they were actually trying to make a good system.:)
It's what?!? First time it was whiny, annoying, stupid, and borderline insulting. Second time it was just plain pathetic. Third time, it's so far over the top that it may actually become mildly amusing for the very first time. (Though I'm not holding my breath.)
Will anyone who actually thought those stupid ads were "cool" please kill yourself and any offspring you may have? Do it for the good of the species.:)
That's a slightly different situation. SUVs make drivers feel safer, while actually being less safe. ("Canyonero!) In general, though, auto safety tech actually does make driving safer, and the result is, overall, a net benefit, even if some percentage of drivers end up driving a little more dangerously.
So auto safty tech may not be as effective as one might hope, due to stupid people, but it's still reasonably effective at its job. SUVs, however, are better at improving the gene pool by helping to eliminate people who are stupid enough to buy and drive SUVs, which is not really their intended job, even if it is a net benefit to society.:)
Most of the people I know who use mostly Linux or mostly Mac also mostly limit their kids to using Linux/Mac, because it's safer and more reliable. The last thing you want is to have your kids installing random Windows software off the Internet. In households that are mostly something other than Windows, Windows is usually only there at all for some specific job-related thing that Daddy or Mommy does.
Furthermore, there would have been little point in saying "mostly Linux" and not mentioning anything else if the kids were primarily using something else.
Wouldn't Intel be in violation if they go forward with plans to outsource Atom Production?
In violation of what? Their license with themselves? Perhaps you're picturing them suing themselves? I think you need to go look for SCO to find that level of insanity (everyone keeps saying that SCO should sue Caldera).:)
I don't think Intel's license with itself is any more public than it's license with AMD, so speculation is pretty much pointless, but I do suspect that Intel's license with itself is a whole lot shorter!:)
While you raise some good points, there's two flaws in your theory. First, that spending more == better, and second, that more accurate reproduction sounds better. The first is more often true than not at the very low end, but tends to become less and less true as you get closer to the middle of the market. At the high end, the correlation between how much you spend and how much more accurate your reproduction becomes is virtually nil. Even when there's room for improvement, spending more doesn't guarantee that improvement, and often you can improve the quality by spending less. Case in point: heavy gauge zip cord, which is dirt cheap, is better speaker wire than most of the fancy, "high-quality" special speaker wires you can pay an arm and a leg for. Likewise, those $250 headphones may well work better than the $1000 dollar ones. There's no way to tell without independent testing. If you just assume they must be better because they cost more, you're simply stupid.
As for the second flaw, there are limits to human hearing, and once you've reached those limits, spending more to get increased accuracy is simply throwing money down a rat hole. This actually emphasizes the first flaw. Of course, it's possible to underestimate the limits, as the people who designed MP3 did, throwing away frequencies "beyond human hearing range" without considering their effects on overtones and resonant frequencies, but that doesn't mean that those limits don't exist.
You should run a virus scanner, just to keep from accidentally forwarding viral crap to other people.
Why? What part of "it's not my problem" do you not understand?:)
I run plenty of security software on my linux boxes.
And yet, I'll bet that there are nearly zero Windows users who scan for *NIX rootkits or trojans on their systems. If they can't be bothered to help me out, why on earth should I waste my time and CPU just to help them out?:p;)
Yes, I will continue to run plenty of security software on my Linux boxes; no I will not scan for Windows viruses or whatever.
(Best line: "that's a matter of opinion, sir". Referring to the result of a simple arithmetic calculation.)
Re:It's just been reviewed - not good
on
Watchmen Watched
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Basically it was a bunch of over-muscled people (mostly men) in daft costumes - not quite wearing their underpants on the outside, but you get the picture, spouting cliches and trying to look "hard".
Yup, that is one of the major points of the comic. Not just how daft they look, but how daft they would actually have to be to do something as ridiculous as all that.
If pluto-like objects were to be considered planets, we would have about 13 planets in the Solar System right now, and that number is steadily increasing.
And this is a problem how?...
So the right thing to do was to remove Pluto (and it's pals) from the planets club, because they really have nothing in common with them.
So you think Mercury has more in common with Jupiter than it does with Ceres? Face it, the IAU's current definition is idiotic. Pluto has "nothing in common" with two objects (Jupiter and Mercury) that have "nothing in common" with each other? Ok, sure, fine, whatever. I put "nothing in common" in quotes because actually, all of the above have some things in common. Pluto actually has a lot more in common with Mercury than Mercury does with Jupiter, but whatever.
BTW, nothing in the definition of planet excludes "pluto-like" objects (icy, comet-like Kuiper-belt objects) from the planets club. If that were the issue, then Ceres would have had to be re-instated as a planet. (Which it should have been.) Instead, they went with some idiocy about orbital debris. If a pluto-like object were found that cleared its orbital path, then that would be a IAU-approved planet. If you're going to nitpick, at least get your facts straight.
I thought it was the oxygen. I had heard that the sky was not-so-blue before life started releasing free oxygen into the atmosphere. But I don't have a definitive reference either way, so I suppose you could be right. Got a cite?
(Posted w/o karma bonus since this is starting to drift off-topic.)
Oh yay, another great example of providing a technically correct, but thoroughly misleading answer. "To answer these questions, we must learn about light, and the Earth's atmosphere." No, you mustn't. Ok, you need to learn one thing: "the sky is blue because air is blue" (from Recurring Science Misconceptions in K-6 Textbooks). All that crap about Rayleigh scattering and frequencies of light is...well, it's true but it's generally beside the point.
Q. Why is my shirt red? A1. (bad) To answer these questions, we must learn about light, and how photons are absorbed or reflected by different materials, and how the cones of the eye convert photons into neural impulses.... A2. (good) because it was dyed red.
Granted, all that other stuff can be interesting too, but to claim that you're providing the simple explanation is just ridiculous.
(At least it's not as bad as the standard explanation of an airfoil, which is simply wrong.)
it's not fair to say "anyone who writes in VB is incompetent at programming".
It may not be fair, but statistically speaking, it seems to be accurate within epsilon. A few (very few) outlying data points don't invalidate the general conclusion.:)
A) Define "consumers". B) Define "browserless". C) Unless you're willing to count lynx, I can name lots. Many that don't even have the option to install a browser, e.g., the OS on my home router and on my DVR. Not to mention my cell phone, though I admit that's becoming more of an exception than a rule these days.
On the other hand, of the half-dozen desktop/workstation operating systems I've used, only one comes with just one choice of browser out of the box. And only one comes with a primary browser that is essentially uninstallable.
Hey, the people who are paid to mod down comments that threaten to reveal the truth about their corporate masters need to pick something. And I think they get bonuses if they use "troll" or "flamebait" instead of simply "overrated".:)
Is there a single Linux (or Unix) user without some knowledge of bash?
Yes, lots and lots. At my house, for example, we have eight Linux users, but only two of them have any knowledge of bash. At my aunt's house, there is one user of Linux, but none with any knowledge of bash. Depending on how far you're willing to stretch the definition, every person with a TiVo could be considered a Linux user, and very few of them are likely to have any knowledge of bash. Etc., etc.
On the other hand, on Ubuntu, I only see three "Bourne-Again shell script text executable" files in/etc/init.d. The rest are all (or claim to be) "POSIX shell script text executable". Of course, that really only means that they start with "#!/bin/sh" instead of "#!/bin/bash", but Ubuntu is derived from Debian which has fairly strong policies about not allowing bashisms in/bin/sh scripts.
Slashdot Mirror
Your link says: "to become doubled".
No. No it does not. His link actually says "an enclosure for sheep", but if you then go on to click the link for "-fold" as a suffix, it says "multiplied by (a specified number)". Twofold is doubled, because it's multiplied by two, but sixfold is only multiplied by six, not 2^6.
with 192GB of Ram you don't NEED swap :)
With that much ram, you can put the swap on a ramdisk! :)
Great, so don't pay him for his post. But—unlike the slashdot "editors"—he's not actually asking to be paid for his postings, so that's kind of a big difference.
That's favoring one vendor over another.
No. No it's not. Any vendor can, and several do support the format. That's the point of an open format ! If it were limited to one vendor, it wouldn't be an open format!!
For a while, there was only one vendor refusing to consider supporting ODF. After all, an open format would put a serious crimp in that vendor's plans for world domination through inescapable lock-in. However, even that vendor has finally announced plans to support ODF in future versions of their software (support is already available through free third-party plugins). In fact, requiring ODF is very nearly favoring all vendors over none. Or something like that. :)
(Is it just me, or does the grass in here seem awfully artificial today, somehow....)
Total BS. If MSFT wanted to adhere to standards, they would. Trouble is, they don't care.
It's not that they don't care--it's that adhering to standards would undermine their business plan. So they compromise, and implement the minimal amount of a standard that they think they can to get people to stop whining, while carefully stopping short of implementing enough to create a level playing field and allowing web developers (in this case) to benefit from the full power of those existing standards.
I'd have to say that ie8 looks identical to all previous versions:
I sure don't see any fancy tabs, and I have no idea why you'd even try to compare it to firefox. :)
Slackware ended up being a good system too
Ha ha ha, that's a good one! Man, you're funny! ...Oh, wait, you're serious? Wow, that's just sad. :p ;)
Nah, seriously, to each their own, but I ran Slackware back when it was just about the only available option, and there's not enough money in the world to pay me to go back.
SLS, but who's counting? :)
Anyway, Slackware and Debian are pretty much exactly the same age, if you count from when the projects started. Debian took quite a bit longer to reach 1.0, but then, they were actually trying to make a good system. :)
First Time it is cool
It's what?!? First time it was whiny, annoying, stupid, and borderline insulting. Second time it was just plain pathetic. Third time, it's so far over the top that it may actually become mildly amusing for the very first time. (Though I'm not holding my breath.)
Will anyone who actually thought those stupid ads were "cool" please kill yourself and any offspring you may have? Do it for the good of the species. :)
That's a slightly different situation. SUVs make drivers feel safer, while actually being less safe. ("Canyonero!) In general, though, auto safety tech actually does make driving safer, and the result is, overall, a net benefit, even if some percentage of drivers end up driving a little more dangerously.
So auto safty tech may not be as effective as one might hope, due to stupid people, but it's still reasonably effective at its job. SUVs, however, are better at improving the gene pool by helping to eliminate people who are stupid enough to buy and drive SUVs, which is not really their intended job, even if it is a net benefit to society. :)
Most of the people I know who use mostly Linux or mostly Mac also mostly limit their kids to using Linux/Mac, because it's safer and more reliable. The last thing you want is to have your kids installing random Windows software off the Internet. In households that are mostly something other than Windows, Windows is usually only there at all for some specific job-related thing that Daddy or Mommy does.
Furthermore, there would have been little point in saying "mostly Linux" and not mentioning anything else if the kids were primarily using something else.
Wouldn't Intel be in violation if they go forward with plans to outsource Atom Production?
In violation of what? Their license with themselves? Perhaps you're picturing them suing themselves? I think you need to go look for SCO to find that level of insanity (everyone keeps saying that SCO should sue Caldera). :)
I don't think Intel's license with itself is any more public than it's license with AMD, so speculation is pretty much pointless, but I do suspect that Intel's license with itself is a whole lot shorter! :)
While you raise some good points, there's two flaws in your theory. First, that spending more == better, and second, that more accurate reproduction sounds better. The first is more often true than not at the very low end, but tends to become less and less true as you get closer to the middle of the market. At the high end, the correlation between how much you spend and how much more accurate your reproduction becomes is virtually nil. Even when there's room for improvement, spending more doesn't guarantee that improvement, and often you can improve the quality by spending less. Case in point: heavy gauge zip cord, which is dirt cheap, is better speaker wire than most of the fancy, "high-quality" special speaker wires you can pay an arm and a leg for. Likewise, those $250 headphones may well work better than the $1000 dollar ones. There's no way to tell without independent testing. If you just assume they must be better because they cost more, you're simply stupid.
As for the second flaw, there are limits to human hearing, and once you've reached those limits, spending more to get increased accuracy is simply throwing money down a rat hole. This actually emphasizes the first flaw. Of course, it's possible to underestimate the limits, as the people who designed MP3 did, throwing away frequencies "beyond human hearing range" without considering their effects on overtones and resonant frequencies, but that doesn't mean that those limits don't exist.
You should run a virus scanner, just to keep from accidentally forwarding viral crap to other people.
Why? What part of "it's not my problem" do you not understand? :)
I run plenty of security software on my linux boxes.
And yet, I'll bet that there are nearly zero Windows users who scan for *NIX rootkits or trojans on their systems. If they can't be bothered to help me out, why on earth should I waste my time and CPU just to help them out? :p ;)
Yes, I will continue to run plenty of security software on my Linux boxes; no I will not scan for Windows viruses or whatever.
There are slashdotters who still use Verizon? Despite their well-publicized math skills? I'm amazed.
(Best line: "that's a matter of opinion, sir". Referring to the result of a simple arithmetic calculation.)
Basically it was a bunch of over-muscled people (mostly men) in daft costumes - not quite wearing their underpants on the outside, but you get the picture, spouting cliches and trying to look "hard".
Yup, that is one of the major points of the comic. Not just how daft they look, but how daft they would actually have to be to do something as ridiculous as all that.
If pluto-like objects were to be considered planets, we would have about 13 planets in the Solar System right now, and that number is steadily increasing.
And this is a problem how?...
So the right thing to do was to remove Pluto (and it's pals) from the planets club, because they really have nothing in common with them.
So you think Mercury has more in common with Jupiter than it does with Ceres? Face it, the IAU's current definition is idiotic. Pluto has "nothing in common" with two objects (Jupiter and Mercury) that have "nothing in common" with each other? Ok, sure, fine, whatever. I put "nothing in common" in quotes because actually, all of the above have some things in common. Pluto actually has a lot more in common with Mercury than Mercury does with Jupiter, but whatever.
BTW, nothing in the definition of planet excludes "pluto-like" objects (icy, comet-like Kuiper-belt objects) from the planets club. If that were the issue, then Ceres would have had to be re-instated as a planet. (Which it should have been.) Instead, they went with some idiocy about orbital debris. If a pluto-like object were found that cleared its orbital path, then that would be a IAU-approved planet. If you're going to nitpick, at least get your facts straight.
I thought it was the oxygen. I had heard that the sky was not-so-blue before life started releasing free oxygen into the atmosphere. But I don't have a definitive reference either way, so I suppose you could be right. Got a cite?
(Posted w/o karma bonus since this is starting to drift off-topic.)
Oh yay, another great example of providing a technically correct, but thoroughly misleading answer. "To answer these questions, we must learn about light, and the Earth's atmosphere." No, you mustn't. Ok, you need to learn one thing: "the sky is blue because air is blue" (from Recurring Science Misconceptions in K-6 Textbooks). All that crap about Rayleigh scattering and frequencies of light is...well, it's true but it's generally beside the point.
Q. Why is my shirt red?
A1. (bad) To answer these questions, we must learn about light, and how photons are absorbed or reflected by different materials, and how the cones of the eye convert photons into neural impulses....
A2. (good) because it was dyed red.
Granted, all that other stuff can be interesting too, but to claim that you're providing the simple explanation is just ridiculous.
(At least it's not as bad as the standard explanation of an airfoil, which is simply wrong.)
it's not fair to say "anyone who writes in VB is incompetent at programming".
It may not be fair, but statistically speaking, it seems to be accurate within epsilon. A few (very few) outlying data points don't invalidate the general conclusion. :)
Linux has always handled Windows networking better than Windows has.
Well, no, not always. Only as long as it's had Windows networking. Before that, it handled it really poorly. :)
Name an OS consumers use that is browserless.
A) Define "consumers". B) Define "browserless". C) Unless you're willing to count lynx, I can name lots. Many that don't even have the option to install a browser, e.g., the OS on my home router and on my DVR. Not to mention my cell phone, though I admit that's becoming more of an exception than a rule these days.
On the other hand, of the half-dozen desktop/workstation operating systems I've used, only one comes with just one choice of browser out of the box. And only one comes with a primary browser that is essentially uninstallable.
Hey, the people who are paid to mod down comments that threaten to reveal the truth about their corporate masters need to pick something. And I think they get bonuses if they use "troll" or "flamebait" instead of simply "overrated". :)
Is there a single Linux (or Unix) user without some knowledge of bash?
Yes, lots and lots. At my house, for example, we have eight Linux users, but only two of them have any knowledge of bash. At my aunt's house, there is one user of Linux, but none with any knowledge of bash. Depending on how far you're willing to stretch the definition, every person with a TiVo could be considered a Linux user, and very few of them are likely to have any knowledge of bash. Etc., etc.
On the other hand, on Ubuntu, I only see three "Bourne-Again shell script text executable" files in /etc/init.d. The rest are all (or claim to be) "POSIX shell script text executable". Of course, that really only means that they start with "#!/bin/sh" instead of "#!/bin/bash", but Ubuntu is derived from Debian which has fairly strong policies about not allowing bashisms in /bin/sh scripts.