For instance you can't losslessly compress white noise using any known method. This sounds flat out wrong to me. You can take white noise and apply a Huffman scheme to it. (Emphasis mine.) Compression works by recording patterns instead of writing them out each time. If the data doesn't have any patterns, it is changed slightly so it does. But this changing is lossy and that's not what we're talking about. By definition, white noise doesn't have any patterns. If you run it through a lossless compression scheme, you'll get the same data plus the compression overhead. So TimoT is correct. Lossless compression of white noise is impossible. cheers, sklein
For the purpose of free software, "the software" is the most advanced version of the original code or any fork thereof. Even a proprietary fork. Therefore, software (not code, software) released under the BSDL isn't guarenteed to stay free. Under the (L)GPL, it is.
Think about it. Why has Linux been so successful this year? I think it probably boils down to other OSes not being successful.
On the stock market and amidst the people who will use the latest new thing no matter what, you may be right. But the core of people like me that has formed will remain.
Linux meets our needs. It is controled by people like us. It is cost effective. It is full featured to the core. And flexible. And allows us to do things our selves to whatever extent we need and want.
We will never go back. We will never lose our enthusiasm. Or so we think:)
All scientists I know personally are Christians. Based on my own anecdotal evidence, I would think the proportion of spiritual people in science is pretty much the same as in the general public.
I assume you realize that you're making an assumption concerning who my god is?
"Believers" within science think that the laws of nature are created by a "higher being." Since it is something that you can neither prove nor disprove, it is not within the domain of science.
I wasn't discussing the laws of science. I was discussing a widely held theory that requires certain events who's grip on the laws of science are tenuous at best.
I think the "scientists abhor spirituality" argument is something propagated by religious fundamentalists. They need to rationalize why their teachings don't mesh with contemporary science.
You notice I wasn't discussing "spirituality". Nor would I since it often refers to a purely emotional state that some practitioners of organized religion derive pleasure from.
My personal, unprovable (even to myself), theory is that factual knowledge of the "alternate dimensions" you'll hear modern Aristotles discuss would put us face to face with some very frightening individuals/beings. But that's just a notion I like to entertain. Perhaps as you suggest, I just like to sync the things I know of the world I can see and feel with what I know of other worlds.
And yes, I still haven't told you who (which god) you have to blame for me:)
OK the majority probably feel that Evolution should be taught....
Looking at the number of dissenting posts to appropriate/. items, I doubt that. I'd also note that with the current scientific community being uncomfortable with an intellegence they don't understand messing in things, it's very difficult to argue for creation. Many potential posters may not bother.
There is no billion dollar IPO backing the hype about BSD.
Uhh, looks like the hype backs the IPO. I know the hype certainly came first. It was there when I started using Linux well before the first IPO. You may not have known about it, but it was there.
The 'fairness' that most people talk about is that the rich should pay more in taxes than the poor do.
How is that fair?
Because living expenses are constant.
Let's say it takes $10,000 to keep one person alive for a year. A single guy who earns $20,000 can afford $10,000 in taxes before he ends up on the street. A single guy who earns $100,000 can afford $80,000 in taxes before he's on the street.
Should the rich guy pay that much? Of course not, but the rich guy's complaining about not getting as many toys. The poor guy's complaining about not getting to live.
In *my* mind, if Bruce Perens went away right now, I don't think that would set back the growth of Linux as much as if Corel went away right now.
And I would have to differ. While companies have contributed to what Linux is today, they are not it's foundation. Linux is what it is because of the ideas championed by people such as Bruce and the unfettered efforts of people like Linus built around those ideas.
I have my doubts that Bruce Perens will become an elder statesperson in the world of Linux/OpenSource. (Roblimo might.) Right now, he has a certain level of popularity, but he seems to create more contention than consensus wherever he goes. (Anyway, that's more of what *I* hear.)
People who shape the idealogical structure of a community always do. For example the man behind the first amendment (George Mason, I believe), RMS, ESR.... But people who implement the ideas that the community actually adopts get the fame. The list of early American politicians is long, Linus and Alan Cox fit the catagory....
As the movement grows and becomes more mainstream, people like Bruce will have served their purpose (that being to make noise and draw attention to that movement), and then, if they can't integrate themselves into the "larger" community, be silently forgotten or ignored.
Or perhaps if they don't choose to integrate themselves. In any case, may the qualities they stood for be remembered.
I bought Corel stock. I think Corel is critical to the success of the acceptance of Linux and Open Source. Other ISV's are watching. If Corel says "screw bruce, screw gnu, and screw linux", then we as a community or a revolution or an MS competitor will have a much harder time being accepted.
Or perhaps it would be a case of the community (currently Bruce, GNU, Linux, etc.) rejecting Corel. The community works through the contributions (code) of those who profit by it's software just as companies profit by the contributions (money) of those who profit by their software. Neither the companies or the community can allow another to steal their code.
Fortunately, the fact that Bruce was "slapped down" so quickly should be an encouraging sign to Corel and other companies that many in our community do see the importance of their involvement.
Was Bruce corrected as you say or did he simply get the chance to bounce his reactions off others as have so many before him?
People in positions of popularity such as Bruce, cannot be expected to act differently than they normally do just because they are popular. I'm just glad the community and movement is strong enough to absorb missteps that occur. I think the true elder statespersons will be those who breed consensus in the community, those who continually provide improvements to the software, and those who provide advocacy, training, and forums for community. Whether Bruce will remain in enough of these catagories remains to be seen.
From what I've seen, if Bruce can't, no one can. It is important that we not expect any individual to live up to superhuman standards. Especially in a world where the fault perceived as theirs may instead be ours.
sklein
Re:Hey world! George Lucas uses advertising! Get '
on
Dear Mr. Lucas
·
· Score: 1
Contrast this to Star Wars which basically says everything is hopeless and the only chance for salvation is through nobility and dictatorship of one form or another. Outcomes are determined by chance, luck, or fate, but not due to any qualities of humanity.
You're just jealous of Jar Jar's long tongue:) Your racial pedudice prevents you from recognizing his qualities of Gunganity. The way he sticks with the Jedi, his concern that the Naboo people might really die.... Oh, and I'm sure, deep down inside, you'd really like to be a general too.
This question applies equally to Gnome, but this is a KDE interview.
Unix design has always gone with many stand-alone components. The command line is a bewildering array of tiny programs connected by pipes and the shell of choice. The graphical environment is similar. One can pick and choose between different X servers, font servers, window managers, and so on.
I don't see this with the desktop environments. True, one can pick and choose dock apps, but what about the rest? I don't see multiple D'n'D servers, each caring little whether KDE or Gnome or nothing is running. I don't see tiny apps competing for the right to manage icons on my root window. If it's possible to replace a significant part of any of the desktop environments, i'm not aware of it.
Am I uninformed? Are we continuing the designs that have made *nix what they are, or are we recreating the monolithic designs that still frustrate us when we're forced to work with them?
BTW, I am not even remotely endorsing Gore. I assure you that he is not my personal choice. Neither is Mr. Bush. I'm not saying who my choice is, but neither of these gentlemen is it.
No disrespect to the gentlemen in question, but neither is my choice either. Which makes me all the more interested in who your choice is. It might provide me with a starting point for my research. Like Slashdot moderation, not something to follow blindly, but a possible hint.
sklein
Re:Killfiles are not the correct answer to threats
on
Usenet Gag Order
·
· Score: 1
Those posts suggesting that killfiles are the answer are just plain wrong.
Perhaps you would be wiser to confine yourself arguments that would bring your readers to your conclusion without the need for statements like the above?
A killfile in response to a threat is a fancy way of playing ostrich, of sticking your head in the sand to avoid seeing the dangers around you.
I, as a reader and USENET contributor, care about my life. I don't want to miss potential, credible threats to my life and property with an improper setup of my killfile. I want to know what is happening around me. Heck, I even care about my reputation. I don't want to miss a smear because the smearer is in my killfile.
If a smear from someone who has taken a flamewar to the point of threats damages your reputation, then you have worse problems to think about.
My rule-of-thumb summary: a killfile should be used only to remove the killjoys from your life, not the killers.
Very logical rule, however, I don't see how a restraining order concerning posting to a newsgroup is different from a killfile. It's not like it will change the posters intentions.
In the physical world such a restraining order would serve to prevent the attacker from being in a position to harm the victim (i.e. near the victim). I have yet to see a Usenet post kill.
I don't think this sounds too different from a normal restraining order.
The difference is the place. In real life restraining orders are necessary because there is nothing you can do to prevent being accosted.
On the net, this is what kill files are for.
If the individual resorts to mailbombs or proves able to evade a well constructed kill file (they rarely are) you apply pressure to their provider:
Complain to their provider.
If that doesn't work, complain to the next provider upstream.
Even if that doesn't work, a solution such as those used against spammers and their unresponsive providers (RBL, negative press campaigns, etc.) is less prone to abuse than the law.
If the law was used as a last resort, it would be directed against the provider, not (directly) against the user.
Can anyone think of additional methods that might be used before the law? (In addition to switching to a more modern forum with karma and moderation (like Slashdot)).
So this self regulation experiment failed. But what was regulating itself? Was the internet regulating itself? As I understand it, no. Business was (failing to) regulate itself. This isn't surprising. Witness MS vs DOJ. The involvment of the net isn't significant.
In short, this is just another case requiring government action to force business to treat citizens decently.
Netscape attempted an open source release. They said very clearly that they controled the code, but if they ever mishandled that responsibility the community was specifically free to fork the code. Code, not API.
But Netscape had nothing to loose. A functional equivalent of their product was being distributed free for major platforms, and the code was of such a quality and age that the developers who worked on the project started by rewriting portions of it. Also, Netscape had already been making much of it's money selling other products and support.
Sun, on the other hand, has invested a great deal in products that are largly unequaled. To truely contribute these projects to the community would be very risky. They are not interested in being relagated to merely a support company.
The community may also make them a bit nervous. This RFE requests Linux support in addition to MS Windows and Solaris. (Link is to JDC, requires free registration.) The RFE was submitted on Dec 08, 1997. Since then, it has accumulated over 400KB of supporting comments becoming the top RFE by a lead of 3729 votes (total 4476). It is still unsatisfied. Sun can't support Linux any more than it could support Mac. (Mac support [by Sun] was dropped as of Java 1.0) With an open source project, this would be no problem. The primary developer simply says, "If you want it that badly, write it." The developer can say this because if the community does write it, but the developer rejects their work, the community can fork the code. But, of course, Sun isn't open source....
The article really sounded as though there is a pressing need to support Java better on Linux machines, but for some reason I thought the general feeling among Linux users was that Java is slow and not really as useful as traditional programming languages.
The language itself has a conceptually very clean design placing it in the popular class of things that are easy to learn and do simple things with.
The standard libraries support a disgusting number of things, so again, simple tasks are often a mere matter of programming.
Java has decent support on various different platforms, especially those that are poor in programming tools.
Hardware's "cheap".
I personally thought Java was the greatest until I became familiar with Unix.
I know nothing about the Bible, but in the Good News Bible it says that some people think that this is a description of a hippo, others think that it is a legendary creature.
Yep, most footnotes say something like that. If they're correct, then the leviathan is the only crocodile that breaths fire.
Then 'splain me this: how come the account of creation in Gen 1 has God creating the animals first, then man: .... - BUT - Gen 2 has the order reversed: ....
From the footnote on Genesis 2:19 in the NET Bible it looks like the original wording could have meant either. Context indicated the correct meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
For instance you can't losslessly compress white noise using any known method. This sounds flat out wrong to me. You can take white noise and apply a Huffman scheme to it. (Emphasis mine.) Compression works by recording patterns instead of writing them out each time. If the data doesn't have any patterns, it is changed slightly so it does. But this changing is lossy and that's not what we're talking about. By definition, white noise doesn't have any patterns. If you run it through a lossless compression scheme, you'll get the same data plus the compression overhead. So TimoT is correct. Lossless compression of white noise is impossible. cheers, sklein
For the purpose of free software, "the software" is the most advanced version of the original code or any fork thereof. Even a proprietary fork. Therefore, software (not code, software) released under the BSDL isn't guarenteed to stay free. Under the (L)GPL, it is.
cheers,
sklein
On the stock market and amidst the people who will use the latest new thing no matter what, you may be right. But the core of people like me that has formed will remain.
Linux meets our needs. It is controled by people like us. It is cost effective. It is full featured to the core. And flexible. And allows us to do things our selves to whatever extent we need and want.
We will never go back. We will never lose our enthusiasm. Or so we think :)
cheers,
sklein
I assume you realize that you're making an assumption concerning who my god is?
I wasn't discussing the laws of science. I was discussing a widely held theory that requires certain events who's grip on the laws of science are tenuous at best.
You notice I wasn't discussing "spirituality". Nor would I since it often refers to a purely emotional state that some practitioners of organized religion derive pleasure from.
My personal, unprovable (even to myself), theory is that factual knowledge of the "alternate dimensions" you'll hear modern Aristotles discuss would put us face to face with some very frightening individuals/beings. But that's just a notion I like to entertain. Perhaps as you suggest, I just like to sync the things I know of the world I can see and feel with what I know of other worlds.
And yes, I still haven't told you who (which god) you have to blame for me :)
cheers,
sklein
Your signature is number 00004558
>date -u
Thu Dec 30 22:12:30 UTC 1999
Keeps going up....
cheers,
sklein
Looking at the number of dissenting posts to appropriate /. items, I doubt that. I'd also note that with the current scientific community being uncomfortable with an intellegence they don't understand messing in things, it's very difficult to argue for creation. Many potential posters may not bother.
cheers,
sklein
There is no billion dollar IPO backing the hype about BSD.
Uhh, looks like the hype backs the IPO. I know the hype certainly came first. It was there when I started using Linux well before the first IPO. You may not have known about it, but it was there.
cheers,
sklein
And when my boss (or a dozen angry users) sais "There is a bug, We can't work" Guess which of these answers will sound better:
a) I know. I allready asked a coupla questions on the net, and I'm sure some answer will come up.
I know. I can't call support until the budget committy approves the expenditure.
b) I know. I have all the source and if you just give me a day or two (or three) I'm sure I'll fix it.
I know. There is nothing I can do.
c) I know. I allready contracted an expert, He is working on it right now.
I know. I have submitted a but report. Hopefully it will be fixed in the next release.
True, this answer is getting to be a FAQ, and I probably shouldn't have spelled it out here, but....
cheers, sklein
The 'fairness' that most people talk about is that the rich should pay more in taxes than the poor do.
How is that fair?
Because living expenses are constant.
Let's say it takes $10,000 to keep one person alive for a year. A single guy who earns $20,000 can afford $10,000 in taxes before he ends up on the street. A single guy who earns $100,000 can afford $80,000 in taxes before he's on the street.
Should the rich guy pay that much? Of course not, but the rich guy's complaining about not getting as many toys. The poor guy's complaining about not getting to live.
cheers,
sklein
Fish can swim. Linux can't.
It would need a little help from the hardware guys, but I think Linux could swim nicely.
cheers,
sklein
In *my* mind, if Bruce Perens went away right now, I don't think that would set back the growth of Linux as much as if Corel went away right now.
And I would have to differ. While companies have contributed to what Linux is today, they are not it's foundation. Linux is what it is because of the ideas championed by people such as Bruce and the unfettered efforts of people like Linus built around those ideas.
sklein
I have my doubts that Bruce Perens will become an elder statesperson in the world of Linux/OpenSource. (Roblimo might.) Right now, he has a certain level of popularity, but he seems to create more contention than consensus wherever he goes. (Anyway, that's more of what *I* hear.)
People who shape the idealogical structure of a community always do. For example the man behind the first amendment (George Mason, I believe), RMS, ESR.... But people who implement the ideas that the community actually adopts get the fame. The list of early American politicians is long, Linus and Alan Cox fit the catagory....
As the movement grows and becomes more mainstream, people like Bruce will have served their purpose (that being to make noise and draw attention to that movement), and then, if they can't integrate themselves into the "larger" community, be silently forgotten or ignored.
Or perhaps if they don't choose to integrate themselves. In any case, may the qualities they stood for be remembered.
I bought Corel stock. I think Corel is critical to the success of the acceptance of Linux and Open Source. Other ISV's are watching. If Corel says "screw bruce, screw gnu, and screw linux", then we as a community or a revolution or an MS competitor will have a much harder time being accepted.
Or perhaps it would be a case of the community (currently Bruce, GNU, Linux, etc.) rejecting Corel. The community works through the contributions (code) of those who profit by it's software just as companies profit by the contributions (money) of those who profit by their software. Neither the companies or the community can allow another to steal their code.
Fortunately, the fact that Bruce was "slapped down" so quickly should be an encouraging sign to Corel and other companies that many in our community do see the importance of their involvement.
Was Bruce corrected as you say or did he simply get the chance to bounce his reactions off others as have so many before him?
People in positions of popularity such as Bruce, cannot be expected to act differently than they normally do just because they are popular. I'm just glad the community and movement is strong enough to absorb missteps that occur. I think the true elder statespersons will be those who breed consensus in the community, those who continually provide improvements to the software, and those who provide advocacy, training, and forums for community. Whether Bruce will remain in enough of these catagories remains to be seen.
From what I've seen, if Bruce can't, no one can. It is important that we not expect any individual to live up to superhuman standards. Especially in a world where the fault perceived as theirs may instead be ours.
sklein
Contrast this to Star Wars which basically says everything is hopeless and the only chance for salvation is through nobility and dictatorship of one form or another. Outcomes are determined by chance, luck, or fate, but not due to any qualities of humanity.
You're just jealous of Jar Jar's long tongue :) Your racial pedudice prevents you from recognizing his qualities of Gunganity. The way he sticks with the Jedi, his concern that the Naboo people might really die.... Oh, and I'm sure, deep down inside, you'd really like to be a general too.
Just get over it :)
sklein
You need to be made aware of it if someone is going to read your mail.
In the physical world, this is correct. The effort to prevent someone from doing something they can do must be expended because there is no other way.
On the net, this is not correct because there is another way. Simply make the undesired activity impossible.
How? GnuPG or PGP.
sklein
This question applies equally to Gnome, but this is a KDE interview.
Unix design has always gone with many stand-alone components. The command line is a bewildering array of tiny programs connected by pipes and the shell of choice. The graphical environment is similar. One can pick and choose between different X servers, font servers, window managers, and so on.
I don't see this with the desktop environments. True, one can pick and choose dock apps, but what about the rest? I don't see multiple D'n'D servers, each caring little whether KDE or Gnome or nothing is running. I don't see tiny apps competing for the right to manage icons on my root window. If it's possible to replace a significant part of any of the desktop environments, i'm not aware of it.
Am I uninformed? Are we continuing the designs that have made *nix what they are, or are we recreating the monolithic designs that still frustrate us when we're forced to work with them?
sklein
sklein
BTW, I am not even remotely endorsing Gore. I assure you that he is not my personal choice. Neither is Mr. Bush. I'm not saying who my choice is, but neither of these gentlemen is it.
No disrespect to the gentlemen in question, but neither is my choice either. Which makes me all the more interested in who your choice is. It might provide me with a starting point for my research. Like Slashdot moderation, not something to follow blindly, but a possible hint.
sklein
Those posts suggesting that killfiles are the answer are just plain wrong.
Perhaps you would be wiser to confine yourself arguments that would bring your readers to your conclusion without the need for statements like the above?
A killfile in response to a threat is a fancy way of playing ostrich, of sticking your head in the sand to avoid seeing the dangers around you.
I, as a reader and USENET contributor, care about my life. I don't want to miss potential, credible threats to my life and property with an improper setup of my killfile. I want to know what is happening around me. Heck, I even care about my reputation. I don't want to miss a smear because the smearer is in my killfile.
If a smear from someone who has taken a flamewar to the point of threats damages your reputation, then you have worse problems to think about.
My rule-of-thumb summary: a killfile should be used only to remove the killjoys from your life, not the killers.
Very logical rule, however, I don't see how a restraining order concerning posting to a newsgroup is different from a killfile. It's not like it will change the posters intentions.
In the physical world such a restraining order would serve to prevent the attacker from being in a position to harm the victim (i.e. near the victim). I have yet to see a Usenet post kill.
sklein
I don't think this sounds too different from a normal restraining order.
The difference is the place. In real life restraining orders are necessary because there is nothing you can do to prevent being accosted.
On the net, this is what kill files are for.
If the individual resorts to mailbombs or proves able to evade a well constructed kill file (they rarely are) you apply pressure to their provider:
If the law was used as a last resort, it would be directed against the provider, not (directly) against the user.
Can anyone think of additional methods that might be used before the law? (In addition to switching to a more modern forum with karma and moderation (like Slashdot)).
sklein
So this self regulation experiment failed. But what was regulating itself? Was the internet regulating itself? As I understand it, no. Business was (failing to) regulate itself. This isn't surprising. Witness MS vs DOJ. The involvment of the net isn't significant.
In short, this is just another case requiring government action to force business to treat citizens decently.
sklein
I haven't seen this said before so....
Netscape attempted an open source release. They said very clearly that they controled the code, but if they ever mishandled that responsibility the community was specifically free to fork the code. Code, not API.
But Netscape had nothing to loose. A functional equivalent of their product was being distributed free for major platforms, and the code was of such a quality and age that the developers who worked on the project started by rewriting portions of it. Also, Netscape had already been making much of it's money selling other products and support.
Sun, on the other hand, has invested a great deal in products that are largly unequaled. To truely contribute these projects to the community would be very risky. They are not interested in being relagated to merely a support company.
The community may also make them a bit nervous. This RFE requests Linux support in addition to MS Windows and Solaris. (Link is to JDC, requires free registration.) The RFE was submitted on Dec 08, 1997. Since then, it has accumulated over 400KB of supporting comments becoming the top RFE by a lead of 3729 votes (total 4476). It is still unsatisfied. Sun can't support Linux any more than it could support Mac. (Mac support [by Sun] was dropped as of Java 1.0) With an open source project, this would be no problem. The primary developer simply says, "If you want it that badly, write it." The developer can say this because if the community does write it, but the developer rejects their work, the community can fork the code. But, of course, Sun isn't open source....
sklein
The article really sounded as though there is a pressing need to support Java better on Linux machines, but for some reason I thought the general feeling among Linux users was that Java is slow and not really as useful as traditional programming languages.
The language itself has a conceptually very clean design placing it in the popular class of things that are easy to learn and do simple things with.
The standard libraries support a disgusting number of things, so again, simple tasks are often a mere matter of programming.
Java has decent support on various different platforms, especially those that are poor in programming tools.
Hardware's "cheap".
I personally thought Java was the greatest until I became familiar with Unix.
sklein
I know nothing about the Bible, but in the Good News Bible it says that some people think that this is a description of a hippo, others think that it is a legendary creature.
Yep, most footnotes say something like that. If they're correct, then the leviathan is the only crocodile that breaths fire.
sklein
"Dinosaurs?"
"Well, uhh. God put those there to test our faith."
I think you asked the wrong guy :) Take a look at Job 40:15 thru Job 41:34. Looks like a description of a couple of dinosaurs/dragons to me.
sklein
Then 'splain me this: how come the account of creation in Gen 1 has God creating the animals first, then man:
....
....
- BUT -
Gen 2 has the order reversed:
From the footnote on Genesis 2:19 in the NET Bible it looks like the original wording could have meant either. Context indicated the correct meaning.
sklein