Leave him waiting at the fucking Rio de Janeiro International Airport or whatever the hell it's called. Don't send a car, don't send someone to meet him, don't send anybody.
Well, cool as in "looking after your own interests" and becoming less poverty-stricken.
As for Lula turning his back on Bill: Well, that's what happens when you stop producing and start consuming. In MS' case they consume ideas and trends and repackage them into a costly mechanism designed to appropriate your monetary and political capital.
We in the US need to start asking ourselves just what do we produce that the rest of the world REALLY needs? We are now even a net consumer of farm products. So what do other countries get in return for dealing with us? Politicial machinations? Access to our cable news?
Oh wait... they get green pieces of paper.
The trend underlying Brazil's behavior is that producer nations want access--- to each other. They are no longer interested in dealing with the irrelevant distortions we introduce as middle men.
I'm not sure I can agree that it is a simple lack of integrity. We have that in spades in the US too.
I've often thought that a lack of cold and of extremely varied seasons had a lot to do with a culture's embrace of science and engineering. Something about having resources available for part of the year, but having to go through months of potential starvation and the possibility of turning into a human popsicle, that jars something deep in the human subconscious. Nature displays drastic and beautiful physical transformations four times per year; It is so bizarre that you almost have to get into the habit of questioning it.
Look at Australia. They supposedly inherited a culture that was in thrall to science and engineering, but they don't seem to lead the world in much of anything.
When you write power-hungry code, you and all of your users feel the pain so the motivation to support multithreading is high.
Look at a free decoder/encoder suite like FFmpeg: it supports multithreading for the most popular formats.
Look at the background project I use to keep my CPUs busy: ClimatePrediction.net . It supports multithreading through the BOINC infrastructure.
If I throww more CPUs at these intense tasks, they will be used. If I throw more CPUs at office software and small utilities, well I see no substantial diffrence in performance because these tasks are boring for even one CPU.
I *know* how Debian is. I run several. Debian doesn't have anything like patchlevels because it isn't an OS. Any mass of software that tries to encompass all possible services and apps as equals isn't an OS.
So why are Debian apologists dumping package-listing info on people when they ask a simple question that relates to virtually every OS that has ever existed? Are they too good (or stupid) to recognize the context of the question and say that the 'OS' itself cannot be distinctly identified and therefore cannot be 'patched' as a unit?
RH radically changes APIs with abandon and breaks 3rd party software more than any other distro I've seen.
RH/Fedora are great if you want to run a [i]cutting-edge[/i] server that sticks to the supplied software base. As for my "Red Hat Compatible" apps like Rational Rose and VMware, they kept breaking with each new RH/Fedora release while they kept running through Debian upgrades.
For a system that has only now just standardized its APIs with 10.4, it works brilliantly.
That Apple chose to undertake a prolonged period of OS X evolution is another issue.
Only getting core updates when Apple says its OK is the reason why your users can cope with your software co-existing with other apps on their systems.
So how can you manage a patchlevel with no defined core?
How far do you go in applying patches? Do you include apache and PHP... er what about cdrecord and K3B? People rely on those last 2 for data archiving sometimes. Do you update the browser... and which ones?? Oh heck, might as well include fixes to KStars and Audacity.
Or maybe not. Or maybe we'll update K3B in the 3.1.05 patchlevel, but not include newer fixes in our 3.1.08 patchlevel.
There is no line drawn between OS and additional services and apps. So the average user is screwed.
It's very sad, IMO. While OSS projects are trying to make their UI look like the old Mac OS (and crippling it in the process), they're not addressing the Linux user's inability to administrate their own systems simply and effectively.
No one in FOSS seems to 'get' that every home and small office user is basically their own system administartor. Yet they are not offered a structured environment where admin tasks like installing 3rd party apps are trivial.
As a new Mac user, I used to hold out hope that Debian would change Linux desktops for the better. But the only way Debian can help is if it puts its foot down damanding LSB compliance, and creates a new package structure that physically honors this core functionality.
Until something like that happens, things will remain chaotic. The kernel is not a sufficient core for the desktop.
As I understand it, no one looked at Windows code when they were writing SAMBA. The SAMBA group instead relied on published specifications and reverse engineering to make something that is compatible with Windows SMB.
Debian plays its role as a conservative force among Linux distributions. OK this last cycle was 12 months too long, but its influence is still of great value.
On the other end of the scale, we have Fedora and Gentoo. As someone who had supported "Red Hat compatible" 3rd-party apps let me say that RH/Fedora present the desktop user with plenty of adventure in keeping their apps running; whereas the same apps will keep running on both Debian stable and testing over the years.
I haven't met a single app/version which ended up breaking on a RH upgrade, that didn't keep running years longer on even the more bleeding-edge Debian derrivatives like Xandros, Linspire and Knoppix. This includes Rational Rose 7 and VMware 3.2.
What do you do with something like OpenOffice.Org, then, which requires about 10,000 dependencies? Should each GTK+ application come with its own statically linked copy of GTK to be carried in memory separately for each app?
What do you do? Find an "OS" that actually is an OS, with a clearly-definied set of available APIs that serve more needs than just kernel functions like "open an IO port, run this program".
When I install the OS X port of OOo called NeoOffice, does it check thousands of dependencies?
No. It checks that I have Mac OS X 10.2 or higher, and maybe the version of Java and thats it. Yes a handful of otherwise sharable libraries are included with the program. So what? Some free libraries are better copied between projects than they are acting as an invisible system-wide reource; That's one of the reasons Apps on OS X supply user-selectable Services.
GNU/Linux will not get better in this regard until LSB creates a desktop-branch of their specification. That would address one of the two great Linux bugaboos: 1) app dependencies, 2) drivers that consumers can't install.
Beyond that... fix the cut-and-paste inconsistencies that still exist, support power management better, and you have the perfect desktop OS.
Depending on your version of Mozilla or Firefox, the solution is to either set your X11 DPI to a higher value, or in the browser's preferences change the Display Resolution to a higher value.
Interestingly, Firefox defaults to 112dpi on my iBook, but only 75dpi on an unmodified Xandros or Knoppix install.
Changing the X11 DPI seems to work consistently for QT apps; with GTK stuff like Mozilla your milage may vary.
However do not forget Apple just moved a huge chuck of their OS (Quartz) into the GPU. Meanwhile IBM wants to sell Apple on their Sony-by-product, the CELL, which is sort of an ANTI-GPU. Not the direction Apple wants to go.
Lots of OS X apps run without Altivec (eg. they are G3 compatible) and their standard compiler is already gcc which fairly excels on the x86. So for low-end and portable Macs with a thrown-in PPC->x86 JIT a Pentium M would more than suffice. The Linux, BSD, OOo, Mozilla and other camps juggle 5 to 7 processors. The Apple camp can handle 2.
OTOH, Intel wrote an x86 compatability layer for Itanium so why not a PPC mode as well? I bet Intel would *love* to make Apple a happy Itanium customer because that chip will become a boondoggle if it doesn't find such a customer quick.
In case you find yourself having to recover info from old magnetic tapes (which have oxides that increasingly tend to flake-off over time), here are a couple of articles about baking tapes in order to restore the adhesion of magnetic particles to the substrate:
All you need is a POS macro for the "coupon printer". Even if your POS isn't normally configured to print an extra coupon segment, it should be easy to print a randomly-generated passkey as if it were a randomly-generated coupon. The passkeys would expire after 2 hours.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it is related to Quantrix.
Well the next thing ya know ol' Jeb's a millionaire...
:-)
(I hope that's not too insulting
Clearly he has a particular room besides the kitchen in mind for cooling.
So he is cooling another room at the expense of the kitchen, which should be OK if the room is closed-off.
Because MS now gets to promote x86 system configurations for which Linux (and OS X) will not have drivers.
So there you have the Windows future: Proprietary lock-in through MS partnerships with peripheral makers.
No DO send Michael Moore, or his equivalent.
Well, cool as in "looking after your own interests" and becoming less poverty-stricken.
As for Lula turning his back on Bill: Well, that's what happens when you stop producing and start consuming. In MS' case they consume ideas and trends and repackage them into a costly mechanism designed to appropriate your monetary and political capital.
We in the US need to start asking ourselves just what do we produce that the rest of the world REALLY needs? We are now even a net consumer of farm products. So what do other countries get in return for dealing with us? Politicial machinations? Access to our cable news?
Oh wait... they get green pieces of paper.
The trend underlying Brazil's behavior is that producer nations want access--- to each other. They are no longer interested in dealing with the irrelevant distortions we introduce as middle men.
I'm not sure I can agree that it is a simple lack of integrity. We have that in spades in the US too.
I've often thought that a lack of cold and of extremely varied seasons had a lot to do with a culture's embrace of science and engineering. Something about having resources available for part of the year, but having to go through months of potential starvation and the possibility of turning into a human popsicle, that jars something deep in the human subconscious. Nature displays drastic and beautiful physical transformations four times per year; It is so bizarre that you almost have to get into the habit of questioning it.
Look at Australia. They supposedly inherited a culture that was in thrall to science and engineering, but they don't seem to lead the world in much of anything.
At least Brazil is a leader in biofuels.
I think naysayers are overstating the issue.
When you write power-hungry code, you and all of your users feel the pain so the motivation to support multithreading is high.
Look at a free decoder/encoder suite like FFmpeg: it supports multithreading for the most popular formats.
Look at the background project I use to keep my CPUs busy: ClimatePrediction.net . It supports multithreading through the BOINC infrastructure.
If I throww more CPUs at these intense tasks, they will be used. If I throw more CPUs at office software and small utilities, well I see no substantial diffrence in performance because these tasks are boring for even one CPU.
I *know* how Debian is. I run several. Debian doesn't have anything like patchlevels because it isn't an OS. Any mass of software that tries to encompass all possible services and apps as equals isn't an OS.
So why are Debian apologists dumping package-listing info on people when they ask a simple question that relates to virtually every OS that has ever existed? Are they too good (or stupid) to recognize the context of the question and say that the 'OS' itself cannot be distinctly identified and therefore cannot be 'patched' as a unit?
I suggest you read the thread for comprehension for modding it.
No, not like this. Worse.
RH radically changes APIs with abandon and breaks 3rd party software more than any other distro I've seen.
RH/Fedora are great if you want to run a [i]cutting-edge[/i] server that sticks to the supplied software base. As for my "Red Hat Compatible" apps like Rational Rose and VMware, they kept breaking with each new RH/Fedora release while they kept running through Debian upgrades.
For a system that has only now just standardized its APIs with 10.4, it works brilliantly.
That Apple chose to undertake a prolonged period of OS X evolution is another issue.
Only getting core updates when Apple says its OK is the reason why your users can cope with your software co-existing with other apps on their systems.
I like Debian, and I can say this 'answer' is a load of evasive BS (based on evasiveness of Debian itself and other Linux distros).
Can you just answer me this: What is the patchlevel of your operating system?
Thank you
So how can you manage a patchlevel with no defined core?
How far do you go in applying patches? Do you include apache and PHP... er what about cdrecord and K3B? People rely on those last 2 for data archiving sometimes. Do you update the browser... and which ones?? Oh heck, might as well include fixes to KStars and Audacity.
Or maybe not. Or maybe we'll update K3B in the 3.1.05 patchlevel, but not include newer fixes in our 3.1.08 patchlevel.
There is no line drawn between OS and additional services and apps. So the average user is screwed.
It's very sad, IMO. While OSS projects are trying to make their UI look like the old Mac OS (and crippling it in the process), they're not addressing the Linux user's inability to administrate their own systems simply and effectively.
No one in FOSS seems to 'get' that every home and small office user is basically their own system administartor. Yet they are not offered a structured environment where admin tasks like installing 3rd party apps are trivial.
As a new Mac user, I used to hold out hope that Debian would change Linux desktops for the better. But the only way Debian can help is if it puts its foot down damanding LSB compliance, and creates a new package structure that physically honors this core functionality.
Until something like that happens, things will remain chaotic. The kernel is not a sufficient core for the desktop.
As I understand it, no one looked at Windows code when they were writing SAMBA. The SAMBA group instead relied on published specifications and reverse engineering to make something that is compatible with Windows SMB.
No, Nnno, NnnnnnnnnnnnnnO. :-)
No.
The experience that these handfuls trying to 'switch' their Dells will be miserable. What are these doobies gonna do wihtout device drivers?
We're talking possibly less functional than PearPC.
It will make Linux look incredibly well-endowed by comparison.
I disagree.
Debian plays its role as a conservative force among Linux distributions. OK this last cycle was 12 months too long, but its influence is still of great value.
On the other end of the scale, we have Fedora and Gentoo. As someone who had supported "Red Hat compatible" 3rd-party apps let me say that RH/Fedora present the desktop user with plenty of adventure in keeping their apps running; whereas the same apps will keep running on both Debian stable and testing over the years.
I haven't met a single app/version which ended up breaking on a RH upgrade, that didn't keep running years longer on even the more bleeding-edge Debian derrivatives like Xandros, Linspire and Knoppix. This includes Rational Rose 7 and VMware 3.2.
What do you do? Find an "OS" that actually is an OS, with a clearly-definied set of available APIs that serve more needs than just kernel functions like "open an IO port, run this program".
When I install the OS X port of OOo called NeoOffice, does it check thousands of dependencies?
No. It checks that I have Mac OS X 10.2 or higher, and maybe the version of Java and thats it. Yes a handful of otherwise sharable libraries are included with the program. So what? Some free libraries are better copied between projects than they are acting as an invisible system-wide reource; That's one of the reasons Apps on OS X supply user-selectable Services.
GNU/Linux will not get better in this regard until LSB creates a desktop-branch of their specification. That would address one of the two great Linux bugaboos: 1) app dependencies, 2) drivers that consumers can't install.
Beyond that... fix the cut-and-paste inconsistencies that still exist, support power management better, and you have the perfect desktop OS.
I ran into the same disparity myself.
Depending on your version of Mozilla or Firefox, the solution is to either set your X11 DPI to a higher value, or in the browser's preferences change the Display Resolution to a higher value.
Interestingly, Firefox defaults to 112dpi on my iBook, but only 75dpi on an unmodified Xandros or Knoppix install.
Changing the X11 DPI seems to work consistently for QT apps; with GTK stuff like Mozilla your milage may vary.
More like a bastion of Linux vs Windows trolling. Esp. the ZDnet side.
Now add IE vs Firefox trolling to the list.
They gotta get page hits somehow...
...given the 'details' that are available.
However do not forget Apple just moved a huge chuck of their OS (Quartz) into the GPU. Meanwhile IBM wants to sell Apple on their Sony-by-product, the CELL, which is sort of an ANTI-GPU. Not the direction Apple wants to go.
Lots of OS X apps run without Altivec (eg. they are G3 compatible) and their standard compiler is already gcc which fairly excels on the x86. So for low-end and portable Macs with a thrown-in PPC->x86 JIT a Pentium M would more than suffice. The Linux, BSD, OOo, Mozilla and other camps juggle 5 to 7 processors. The Apple camp can handle 2.
OTOH, Intel wrote an x86 compatability layer for Itanium so why not a PPC mode as well? I bet Intel would *love* to make Apple a happy Itanium customer because that chip will become a boondoggle if it doesn't find such a customer quick.
In case you find yourself having to recover info from old magnetic tapes (which have oxides that increasingly tend to flake-off over time), here are a couple of articles about baking tapes in order to restore the adhesion of magnetic particles to the substrate:
http://www.josephson.com/bake_tape.html
http://www.wendycarlos.com/news.html#baketape
The Wendy Carlos article is particularly interesting to me since it involves the soundtrack to the movie TRON.
FWIW all the CDROMs I have from 13 years ago are still readable. My early 6 year-old CD-RWs are also still working.
#3, that is.
All you need is a POS macro for the "coupon printer". Even if your POS isn't normally configured to print an extra coupon segment, it should be easy to print a randomly-generated passkey as if it were a randomly-generated coupon. The passkeys would expire after 2 hours.