Why don't you just do a 'ls sd*' like a normal person would do. Pipes can be fun and make things easier, but using grep when ls does everything you need it to do is just ludicruous. If you're capable of compiling your own kernel, you should know this. Also, why do you need to list hidden files (-a)? But perhaps you're just trolling.
... is that OO is a complete suit, but the word processor part isnt as MSWord compliant as Abiword.
Perhaps that is the case for AbiWord 2.2, but not for earlier versions. AbiWord 2.0 fails for very simple Word documents, but I haven't had many problems with OOWriter, except for a very graphical 'poem' that was totally dependent on font and font size (and line breaks).
But as OO and Abi have different release schedules, you can expect one to surpass the other at various points in time, just like IE once was very much better than Mozilla, etc.
OK, so let's say there's a kiddie porn case. By your reasoning, the court should have to publish the evidence. This is, of course, illegal, so the court would have to prosecute themselves, and publish the evidence again, ad infinitum. It's not only absurd, but it's an infinite loop.
Yes, that's a possibility. But I think a new motherboard also demands a new PSU (don't the newer Athlons need the same plug that was introduced with the P4?), so in the end the cost will be about the same. And my graphics card still sucks -- it's 1st gen Radeon, halfway between GeForce256 and GF2. It's not going to let me play Doom3 at all, but there is a chance that HL2 will load...
The problem is, I have no idea which upgrade is best for my immediate gaming needs. However, I do know that none of the options are very future proof -- AGP is on its way out, and so is socket 754. But then again, how many times have you been able to upgrade the CPU significantly without also changing the MB?
I want to see a benchmark of the newest cards (hey, a GeForce 6800 non-GT is quite affordable) on somewhat older CPUs as well. It's great to see that an Radeon X800 or GeForce 6800GT rock at high resolutions with P4 @ 3.2 GHz, but what about those of us stuck with Athlon XP 1600+ and a motherboard that can't take much more. Can we play HL2 with the latest offerings from ATI and nvidia, or should we just stick to our old Radeon 7200s and play Tuxracer instead? A modern GPU should offload the CPU quite a bit, but it's impossible to tell just how much from the benchmarks Anandtech et al do.
For something that can be used a bit like Buzz, but is far more advanced, try Pure Data. Be prepared for a very steep learning curve, though. The default screen is just a blanc canvas, and it doesn't need to be used like a tracker (the likeness to Buzz is in the modular approach to synthesis).
Responibility is when you ask yourself: "Do I *REALLY* need this??"
Maturity is when you answer: "No."
Bah. I was just thinking and answering like that about buying an iPod, and I both have money (for the first time in 11 months), and I'm very immature. So you're obviously wrong.
I answered this question here, but since that time I've been able to upgrade my Mac again, to 320 MB RAM. So it's quite able to run Panther (with the help of XPostFacto). So far, I haven't bothered reinstalling it. I have no reason to. What are the pros of running OS X? You can run Photoshop and Office. I don't need them. You have a nice GUI for configuring your network. I don't need that.
The cons of OS X is that as a unix, it's just not as well integrated as Debian. And Fink is neither well integrated in the OS, nor of very high quality. It is apt-get, but, like Yellow Dog, it doesn't do it as well as Debian. The packages are rarely updated, and some are just broken. So personally, I can just as well turn the question around, and ask rhetorically: Why would I reinstall OS X when all it does (for me!), is the same as Debian, but worse?
It's just that OS X, while nice, isn't the best solution for everyone. I'm a competent Debian user, and OS X gives me little that I don't have in Linux. So I guess the answer to your question would have to be: An OS X user would want to install Linux to see if it suits him or her better than OS X.
Job, the one in the good book, wasn't the founder of a religion. He was already the follower of our lord god, who in a sudden burst of vanity made a stupid bet with the devil. The evil dude bet our lord woudn't find a single soul who was 100% loyal to him, to which our holy father replied: 'Is that so? Well, yo mama is so fat that... hey, wait I got this here man called Job, he's so loyal that I can fry his testicles and eat them for lunch, if I actually liked testicles. But I don't, just ask Job. Oh wait, he hasn't got testicles anymore, so I could only eat them if he had, but that's beside the point. Loyal man, this here Job.'
And so our heavenly father and the devil went on a quest to torment poor Job, to test his loyalty. I'm not going to go into much detail, because children might be reading this, and they could get the wrong impression of the ol' mighty, but let's just say they burnt down his house, set a plague on him and killed his offspring -- it could've been something else as well, who cares for Job anyway? Well, to cut a long story short, Job was still loyal after all the abuse our maker put on him.
And to reward him, god gave him a following as loyal as he himself had been. So the Apple Corp. was founded, and continued in the same religious tradition after Job. And they lived unhappily ever after.
Well, considering this huge political troll was posted and peer-reviewed in a scientific journal, it would be better suited for a "news for nerds" site than most of the stuff posted on politics.slashdot.org.
I used to run OS X on my Powerbook G3 (Wallstreet) 266, with 192 MB RAM. It went OK, if a little painful when running several big apps at the same time. I like OS X. Browsing with Safari while reading usenet news with Thunderbird could be a bit slow if iTunes was running, and so on. But apart from that, it was better than you'd expect. Then one of my RAM modules broke, and I was down to 64 MB. OS X wouldn't boot. OS 9 is crap. I installed first Yellowdog, then moved to Debian because Yellowdog's apt was broken.
Debian works well. All my HW is supported, and just browsing with Firefox is much smoother than it ever was in OS X (but of course, running several apps at the time is even more painful with only 64 MB RAM). I finished my thesis in LaTeX and Emacs for Linux instead of using the same in Apple's X11. Not to mention that these are far better integrated in Debian than in OS X with Fink (or that other horrendous TeX installer-thingy with the most miserable GUI I've ever seen). OpenOffice too, if I need Word support.
Oh, and the fact that I know Debian so well means that it's just as user friendly as it possibly can be for me. OS X just give me shiny graphical interfaces for doing the same things a bit more slowly. I can do everything I want to do in Linux, and I'm definately just a user.
But that means they can calculate many more times. And when the number of incorrect predictions approach infinite, the number of unpredicted right answers will come closer to 1, and we can go with that one.
Of course, the weather being a chaotic system, will change behaviour when being unpredicted more imprecisely, so when they finally arrive at the only impossible prediction being that it will rain frogs, the weather will make sure it rains Frenchmen.
Oh, and by the way, the NBC seems to be the only source that contradicts the claim that the explosives were removed after the US occupation started. Here is more information on the subject. One neat quote:
NBC television reported that one of its correspondents was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division which temporarily took control of the base on 10 April 2003 but did not find any of the explosives.
However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.
Well, your first example has been discredited. Every example you find since April of 2003 is irrelevant because you can't say for certain how secure Iraq was when Hussein was in power.
OK, if facts are irrelevant, our discussion will just have to end. As for the 300,000 bodies: It is well known that Hussein gassed whole Kurd villages during the war against Iran, and it was well known while Hussein was in power.
Oh, so you admit that you want to go after ONLY Al Qaeda, but ignore anybody else until they strike us in a major 9/11-style attack?
Going after only your own enemies seems to be the best way to avoid creating new ones.
I wonder... in the year 2000, would you have supported going into Afghanistan forcefully and removing the Taliban in an attempt to prevent an alleged terrorist attack?
Were any of the hijackers in Afghanistan at the time?
Sorry, don't watch NBC. Took the link from Google News, but finding other examples wouldn't be too hard. Iraq isn't more secure now than it was under Hussein.
A selective war on terrorism? How could it not be? The war itself creates terror (for the people in Iraq), so if it wasn't selective, Bush would have to fight himself as well. That's absurd. No, what I would prefer to the ongoing war on terrorism, is something that will increase our (NATO and friends) security.
Nonetheless, the hardware support of even the latest Linux distributions is inferior to that of Windows or even Mac OS X
OS X? Are you crazy? OS X has great support for Mac hardware, and some support for PC hardware. Yes, it supports some hardware that Linux does not support, but on the other hand, Linux supports a lot of HW that OS X doesn't even need to support. For instance, OS X does not support the sound card in my SGI Indigo^2. Neither the network card, nor the CPU. Not my very common NE2000 PCMCIA network card (works in Linux PPC on the same laptop). It probably supports very few PC soundcards, and so on. Mac OS X supports Mac very well, and that's part of the reason why it's great: It's specialised for its hardware. But it does not have very broad hardware support.
Saddam Hussein was probably a terrorist any ordinary sense of the word. I'm not disputing that. But the link to Al-Qaida and the attacks against USA just isn't there. However, my problem with the war against Iraq isn't so much that it is unfair as that I don't believe it will work as a part of this 'war against terrorism'. As an example, take the recent looting of explosives south of Baghdad. This happened during the US occupation, not while Hussein was in power. Who could not predict that this sort of thing would happen? It's fucking obvious. At least Hussein was too paranoid to let his weapons get into the hands of the masses.
And that's one reason why I think the whole war is a scam. It can't work, and they know it. Or should know it. It doesn't really matter whether it's malice or incompetence, the results are the same.
Slashdot works perfectly as it is. First, the editors post a story. Then, you have 20 comments saying "F1TS P0ST!!11" at -1, mixed with various +5, insightful reiterations of the story as posted by the editors. Then you have the comments about how this will stifle free speech and innovation, and others on that CmdrTaco has posted yet another dupe. After a couple of hours, the people who actually bothered to read the linked article, comment on how the story is totally wrong, and that, yes, it was a dupe. At last, the editors will update the story with "Update:Dupe!" and correct some of the most grave mistakes, so the readers will understand that the story wasn't remotely interesting to begin with.
Re:Not the appropriate response, but
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 1
Possibly, but very few have semi-autonomous rat-brains in petri dishes.
i can't wrap my poor little brain around what sort of feedback they used!
Obviously. If you did, you'd be flying a flight simulator, not posting to slashdot.
In other news,[1] rats have made clumps of neurons from scientists' brains behave in a crude sort of stimulus-response behaviour by connecting the neurons to a simulation of a news for nerds site.
[1]Or should that be 'In Soviet Russia...'?
Uhm, not the appropriate response, but
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 4, Funny
The first thing I thought was: I want one. Wonder if it could learn to play GTA?
Slashdot Mirror
"ls -al|grep sd"
Why don't you just do a 'ls sd*' like a normal person would do. Pipes can be fun and make things easier, but using grep when ls does everything you need it to do is just ludicruous. If you're capable of compiling your own kernel, you should know this. Also, why do you need to list hidden files (-a)? But perhaps you're just trolling.
But as OO and Abi have different release schedules, you can expect one to surpass the other at various points in time, just like IE once was very much better than Mozilla, etc.
OK, so let's say there's a kiddie porn case. By your reasoning, the court should have to publish the evidence. This is, of course, illegal, so the court would have to prosecute themselves, and publish the evidence again, ad infinitum. It's not only absurd, but it's an infinite loop.
So, basically: No, you're wrong.
Do you use the DirectX9 rendering path? If so, try the DX8 or DX7 instead. See this round-up from Anandtech.
:-(
Blah, my stupid XP 1600+ can't handle the game anyway.
Yes, that's a possibility. But I think a new motherboard also demands a new PSU (don't the newer Athlons need the same plug that was introduced with the P4?), so in the end the cost will be about the same. And my graphics card still sucks -- it's 1st gen Radeon, halfway between GeForce256 and GF2. It's not going to let me play Doom3 at all, but there is a chance that HL2 will load...
The problem is, I have no idea which upgrade is best for my immediate gaming needs. However, I do know that none of the options are very future proof -- AGP is on its way out, and so is socket 754. But then again, how many times have you been able to upgrade the CPU significantly without also changing the MB?
I want to see a benchmark of the newest cards (hey, a GeForce 6800 non-GT is quite affordable) on somewhat older CPUs as well. It's great to see that an Radeon X800 or GeForce 6800GT rock at high resolutions with P4 @ 3.2 GHz, but what about those of us stuck with Athlon XP 1600+ and a motherboard that can't take much more. Can we play HL2 with the latest offerings from ATI and nvidia, or should we just stick to our old Radeon 7200s and play Tuxracer instead? A modern GPU should offload the CPU quite a bit, but it's impossible to tell just how much from the benchmarks Anandtech et al do.
This is apple.slashdot.org. Praising Mac here will earn you +++ no matter how moronic your comment is.
Oh well, I guess I shold post this anonymously, but what the hell.
As well as our friends BSD and Tux. Of course, they do not support BeOS or Amiga in any way.
For something that can be used a bit like Buzz, but is far more advanced, try Pure Data. Be prepared for a very steep learning curve, though. The default screen is just a blanc canvas, and it doesn't need to be used like a tracker (the likeness to Buzz is in the modular approach to synthesis).
I answered this question here, but since that time I've been able to upgrade my Mac again, to 320 MB RAM. So it's quite able to run Panther (with the help of XPostFacto). So far, I haven't bothered reinstalling it. I have no reason to. What are the pros of running OS X? You can run Photoshop and Office. I don't need them. You have a nice GUI for configuring your network. I don't need that.
The cons of OS X is that as a unix, it's just not as well integrated as Debian. And Fink is neither well integrated in the OS, nor of very high quality. It is apt-get, but, like Yellow Dog, it doesn't do it as well as Debian. The packages are rarely updated, and some are just broken. So personally, I can just as well turn the question around, and ask rhetorically: Why would I reinstall OS X when all it does (for me!), is the same as Debian, but worse?
It's just that OS X, while nice, isn't the best solution for everyone. I'm a competent Debian user, and OS X gives me little that I don't have in Linux. So I guess the answer to your question would have to be: An OS X user would want to install Linux to see if it suits him or her better than OS X.
Job, the one in the good book, wasn't the founder of a religion. He was already the follower of our lord god, who in a sudden burst of vanity made a stupid bet with the devil. The evil dude bet our lord woudn't find a single soul who was 100% loyal to him, to which our holy father replied: 'Is that so? Well, yo mama is so fat that ... hey, wait I got this here man called Job, he's so loyal that I can fry his testicles and eat them for lunch, if I actually liked testicles. But I don't, just ask Job. Oh wait, he hasn't got testicles anymore, so I could only eat them if he had, but that's beside the point. Loyal man, this here Job.'
And so our heavenly father and the devil went on a quest to torment poor Job, to test his loyalty. I'm not going to go into much detail, because children might be reading this, and they could get the wrong impression of the ol' mighty, but let's just say they burnt down his house, set a plague on him and killed his offspring -- it could've been something else as well, who cares for Job anyway? Well, to cut a long story short, Job was still loyal after all the abuse our maker put on him.
And to reward him, god gave him a following as loyal as he himself had been. So the Apple Corp. was founded, and continued in the same religious tradition after Job. And they lived unhappily ever after.
Well, considering this huge political troll was posted and peer-reviewed in a scientific journal, it would be better suited for a "news for nerds" site than most of the stuff posted on politics.slashdot.org.
I used to run OS X on my Powerbook G3 (Wallstreet) 266, with 192 MB RAM. It went OK, if a little painful when running several big apps at the same time. I like OS X. Browsing with Safari while reading usenet news with Thunderbird could be a bit slow if iTunes was running, and so on. But apart from that, it was better than you'd expect. Then one of my RAM modules broke, and I was down to 64 MB. OS X wouldn't boot. OS 9 is crap. I installed first Yellowdog, then moved to Debian because Yellowdog's apt was broken.
Debian works well. All my HW is supported, and just browsing with Firefox is much smoother than it ever was in OS X (but of course, running several apps at the time is even more painful with only 64 MB RAM). I finished my thesis in LaTeX and Emacs for Linux instead of using the same in Apple's X11. Not to mention that these are far better integrated in Debian than in OS X with Fink (or that other horrendous TeX installer-thingy with the most miserable GUI I've ever seen). OpenOffice too, if I need Word support.
Oh, and the fact that I know Debian so well means that it's just as user friendly as it possibly can be for me. OS X just give me shiny graphical interfaces for doing the same things a bit more slowly. I can do everything I want to do in Linux, and I'm definately just a user.
But that means they can calculate many more times. And when the number of incorrect predictions approach infinite, the number of unpredicted right answers will come closer to 1, and we can go with that one.
Of course, the weather being a chaotic system, will change behaviour when being unpredicted more imprecisely, so when they finally arrive at the only impossible prediction being that it will rain frogs, the weather will make sure it rains Frenchmen.
Going after only your own enemies seems to be the best way to avoid creating new ones.
Were any of the hijackers in Afghanistan at the time?
Sorry, don't watch NBC. Took the link from Google News, but finding other examples wouldn't be too hard. Iraq isn't more secure now than it was under Hussein.
A selective war on terrorism? How could it not be? The war itself creates terror (for the people in Iraq), so if it wasn't selective, Bush would have to fight himself as well. That's absurd. No, what I would prefer to the ongoing war on terrorism, is something that will increase our (NATO and friends) security.
Saddam Hussein was probably a terrorist any ordinary sense of the word. I'm not disputing that. But the link to Al-Qaida and the attacks against USA just isn't there. However, my problem with the war against Iraq isn't so much that it is unfair as that I don't believe it will work as a part of this 'war against terrorism'. As an example, take the recent looting of explosives south of Baghdad. This happened during the US occupation, not while Hussein was in power. Who could not predict that this sort of thing would happen? It's fucking obvious. At least Hussein was too paranoid to let his weapons get into the hands of the masses.
And that's one reason why I think the whole war is a scam. It can't work, and they know it. Or should know it. It doesn't really matter whether it's malice or incompetence, the results are the same.
Slashdot works perfectly as it is. First, the editors post a story. Then, you have 20 comments saying "F1TS P0ST!!11" at -1, mixed with various +5, insightful reiterations of the story as posted by the editors. Then you have the comments about how this will stifle free speech and innovation, and others on that CmdrTaco has posted yet another dupe. After a couple of hours, the people who actually bothered to read the linked article, comment on how the story is totally wrong, and that, yes, it was a dupe. At last, the editors will update the story with "Update: Dupe!" and correct some of the most grave mistakes, so the readers will understand that the story wasn't remotely interesting to begin with.
Possibly, but very few have semi-autonomous rat-brains in petri dishes.
It was OK, since the brain wasn't taken from a rat fetus, but from a full grown -- and CRIMINAL! -- rat.
In other news,[1] rats have made clumps of neurons from scientists' brains behave in a crude sort of stimulus-response behaviour by connecting the neurons to a simulation of a news for nerds site.
[1]Or should that be 'In Soviet Russia...'?
The first thing I thought was: I want one. Wonder if it could learn to play GTA?