Unfortunately, building codes would often prevent building a subterrainian home.
Dude, If you're building a secret underground bunker so you can hide from insurance companies and law enforcement the first thing you do is not apply to the government for permission.
Thank you for your cogent answer, although it did not address my question directly, but rather its antistrophe, it proved edifying and answered at least some of my question, albeit if per speculum in aenigmate.
I understand that when writing in a formal style I revert to language such as might have been used during the Age of Reason. In an age where anti-intellectualism is the norm among the intellegensia I understand that some might interpret that as academic pretentiousness, and, well, I can live with that (although, while I may be a scholar, I am no academic and find true academic pretentiousness annoying).
As Eco ( a learned man if there ever was one) puts it in "The Name of the Rose":
. ..often the learned men of our time are only dwarfs on the shoulders of dwarfs.
To be accused of Corporate Speak, however, is another matter. It implies that I am a pretentious moron, and I'll take some exception to that.
Wow, it sounds like you pulled that straight out of a Dilbert strip. Try and work in "synergistic" and "best practices" next time.
For the most part I don't read Dilbert and don't work in a Dilbert like enviroment (praise the whatever).
I pulled it straight out of the universal lexicon which has been prevelant for several hundred years and thus could have pulled it straight out of Roger Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, or an English translation of Voltaire. At the moment I am reading Gibbon, Umberto Eco and Sir Ricard Burton's translation of the Tales of a Thousand Nights and a Night, from which is also could have been pulled. It is the language of poetry and learned men, not the modern vulgar language of 'Corporate Speak."
I'm fairly free with the phrase "best practices." It is apt, descriptive, applicable across a broad spectrum of pursuits (you're as likely to find a carpenter or a poet using the phrase as a software engineer) and has historical standing.
I can't recall ever having used the word "synergistic" before, not even in a quote. Synergy is a perfectly good word, however. You'll find it in the Classical Greek lexicon. I am not responsible for how it is used in the vulgar.
And some of us ( who might have a certain infamy for not having a weblog ) are having a bit of trouble understanding why we wouldn't like doing it that way now.
Could someone please edify me (and consequently the rest of the viewing audience who might not yet have weblogs) why we might find it desirable to use dynamic methods to update and display a plain text journal?
And for us old time teletype jockeys who are jacks of all trades but masters of only vi who have never figured out what an IDE might possibly be good for, how do the benefits of weblog packages offset the disadvantages that are the raison d'etre of this Slashdot article, vis a vis, licensing issues (not to mention their attendant prices).
However, I do not think that alpaca fleece is quite the luxury item in Peru, Bolivia and Chile like it is in the US...
Exactly the point, from the Purvian point of view.
You're certainly right about the showing, breeding and pyramid scheme aspects of the American Alpaca market though. It's the very reason that I don't breed Alpacas myself. It is also what makes animals of a certain pedigree so valuable here (Although they have closed down registration to new Purvian animals. When I said it is a 4H club type issue I was speaking about inside Peru where the animals are common and ownable on a peasant's budget, just like prize pigs or sheep are here).
No, some of those are just ordinary elements of plot, and some of them are just machina without deus required. Rather convienient plot elements to produce a manipulated end, but that's something of a different sort.
Q can be taken as the literal hand of God. He can wave said appendage and create any effect, at any time, including changing the laws of physics throughout the entire universe. You can spend half your lifetime crawling through space in a tin can and then have Q throw a hissy fit and "poof" you back to where you started.
It reduces humanity to below the level of ants, in its own eyes, and rightly so. The existence of Q means there's little point to doing more than porno on the holodeck, and Q could even ruin that if he wanted to.
Bring back Q? Q is what made me stop watching in the first place because, as per above, he renders the whole exercise pointless.
the smugglers maybe quite unaware of this and the more gullible ones may just get caught.
The people who do the smuggling are not peasants or petty criminals. It's an upscale crime undertaken by those who are already quite well off, by the very nature of what's required to pull it off. Smugglers in business suits driving Mercedes, who read newspapers.
And a legitimate pedigreed Purvian alpaca might bring as much as $100,000.
That's right, for a single animal. We're talking big business here. An American bred alpaca with a couple of show ribbons to its credit might well run you $30,000.
The headline is misleading. The Peruvian alpaca is in no danger. It's in danger of spreading. What's at risk is the market value of Peruvian alpaca fleece. For the most part what's going on constitutes what most people think of as "saving" an animal today.
Camalids are being reintroduced into territories in which they have become extinct.
This is a trade embargo vs. free trade/open market issue, not a "saving the poor little furry thing" issue. The only animals being moved are pedigree domestic stock. 4H club stuff. Legitimate tradable goods that the government doesn't want traded out of the country.
No, at that point he was explicitly talking about individual packages and their individual licenses. That part he made perfectly clear.
It's not a big deal, but I've noticed on many occassions representatives of commercial distros misstate the GPL to imply you have fewer distribution rights than the license actually provides. And I don't mean to imply that this is some sort of company policy (although perhaps in certain cases it is), but rather a missunderstanding of the license by the individual making the statement (or his being taught a missunderstanding).
Each of these licenses applies to the single package it comes with and allows you to make as many copies of the software as you want and give them to whoever you want, provided you do not _sell_ the software.
I would only take exception to this one line. Certainly you are free to sell GPLed and LGPLed software to your little heart's content. Nor is there a requirement to make the source code available for free. You may charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of distribution. CDs cost money and the labor to produce them also costs money. The GPL doesn't expect you to go broke supplying free CDs.
Perhaps he meant that line only to apply to the licenses of packages that were not released under the GPL, such as the artistic license, but he did not make that clear.
Of course with the BSD license nearly anything goes so long as you don't modify the copyright statements.
It is an unpleasant fact of life that if you don't make sufficient of the latter you get rather little of the former. We must all eat our peck of dirt and shit before we die. Some of us have to shovel it too. . . but I didn't mean to start talking about marketing.
I am not responsible for what not the Enterprise did in Star Trek:Voyager.
I also mentioned that the LEM, which was known to make a soft landing or two, did not fly. It would have been just irrelevant to show me a picture of the space shuttle flying.
What else from Star Trek might work? Well, pretty much anything you look at and think "Oh. That might work."
They didn't just make everything up from nothing to do the show. They relied on current knowledge. They didn't do any science. Saucers have known aerodynamic qualities ( and any number of us in the 60s made "flying" devices of one sort or another by gluing two paper plates together, even before Star Trek). If you bang matter into antimatter you'll get energy. If you make clocks out of rotating cylinders. . . the whole thing ends up looking silly because you couldn't even predict simple technologies just a few years out.
The model is interesting, but doesn't mean or imply anything at all about Star Trek "technology." It isn't even a new idea, it just has a new web page.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do us Brits get such a raw deal?
Herman's Hermits.
KFG
Unfortunately, building codes would often prevent building a subterrainian home.
Dude, If you're building a secret underground bunker so you can hide from insurance companies and law enforcement the first thing you do is not apply to the government for permission.
Sheesh! Get with the program.
KFG
Whoever said some of those landscapes didn't contain a girl and a pony?
KFG
The intelligence services above all are familiar with this dictum, despite, or rather perhaps because of, their reliance upon double agents.
KFG
"Funny thing is, the MS executive (Chris Sharp) used to work for Red Hat."
.
Of course, he's just some greedy bastard. .
A man may not serve two masters.
KFG
Thank you for your cogent answer, although it did not address my question directly, but rather its antistrophe, it proved edifying and answered at least some of my question, albeit if per speculum in aenigmate.
KFG
I consider it anachronistic. . .
I have been accused of being an anachronism and have yet to find a suitable defense to that particular charge.
There would seem, therefore, to be a reasonable chance that I am guilty.
KFG
Blogging--and, indeed, any online publishing-- should be as simple as typing away in your favourite text editor and hitting Save.
:wq or ZZ, not "Save")
:)
But that's what I already do with vi! (Well, vim actually. Ok, and it's
Fundamental is Blosxom's reliance upon the file system, folders and files as its content database. Entries are plain text files like any other.
But I already rely on the file system and files (and what's this "folder" of which they speak?).
The whole thing looks like a terrible bit of bloatware to me.
As for customizability, that's what I've got vi for.
KFG
I understand that when writing in a formal style I revert to language such as might have been used during the Age of Reason. In an age where anti-intellectualism is the norm among the intellegensia I understand that some might interpret that as academic pretentiousness, and, well, I can live with that (although, while I may be a scholar, I am no academic and find true academic pretentiousness annoying).
.often the learned men of our time are only dwarfs on the shoulders of dwarfs.
As Eco ( a learned man if there ever was one) puts it in "The Name of the Rose":
. .
To be accused of Corporate Speak, however, is another matter. It implies that I am a pretentious moron, and I'll take some exception to that.
KFG
If you are regularly updating a single page, you don't want readers to have to download a big page to find just the most recent news.
I would simply call this "Bad site design."
KFG
Ingres was made by Relational Technology Inc
Actually, it began it's life circa 1974 as a research project at UCB and was originally released with source under a BSD license.
The more things change, the more they remain the same I guess.
KFG
Wow, it sounds like you pulled that straight out of a Dilbert strip. Try and work in "synergistic" and "best practices" next time.
For the most part I don't read Dilbert and don't work in a Dilbert like enviroment (praise the whatever).
I pulled it straight out of the universal lexicon which has been prevelant for several hundred years and thus could have pulled it straight out of Roger Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, or an English translation of Voltaire. At the moment I am reading Gibbon, Umberto Eco and Sir Ricard Burton's translation of the Tales of a Thousand Nights and a Night, from which is also could have been pulled. It is the language of poetry and learned men, not the modern vulgar language of 'Corporate Speak."
I'm fairly free with the phrase "best practices." It is apt, descriptive, applicable across a broad spectrum of pursuits (you're as likely to find a carpenter or a poet using the phrase as a software engineer) and has historical standing.
I can't recall ever having used the word "synergistic" before, not even in a quote. Synergy is a perfectly good word, however. You'll find it in the Classical Greek lexicon. I am not responsible for how it is used in the vulgar.
KFG
And some of us ( who might have a certain infamy for not having a weblog ) are having a bit of trouble understanding why we wouldn't like doing it that way now.
Could someone please edify me (and consequently the rest of the viewing audience who might not yet have weblogs) why we might find it desirable to use dynamic methods to update and display a plain text journal?
And for us old time teletype jockeys who are jacks of all trades but masters of only vi who have never figured out what an IDE might possibly be good for, how do the benefits of weblog packages offset the disadvantages that are the raison d'etre of this Slashdot article, vis a vis, licensing issues (not to mention their attendant prices).
KFG
However, I do not think that alpaca fleece is quite the luxury item in Peru, Bolivia and Chile like it is in the US...
Exactly the point, from the Purvian point of view.
You're certainly right about the showing, breeding and pyramid scheme aspects of the American Alpaca market though. It's the very reason that I don't breed Alpacas myself. It is also what makes animals of a certain pedigree so valuable here (Although they have closed down registration to new Purvian animals. When I said it is a 4H club type issue I was speaking about inside Peru where the animals are common and ownable on a peasant's budget, just like prize pigs or sheep are here).
KFG
No, some of those are just ordinary elements of plot, and some of them are just machina without deus required. Rather convienient plot elements to produce a manipulated end, but that's something of a different sort.
Q can be taken as the literal hand of God. He can wave said appendage and create any effect, at any time, including changing the laws of physics throughout the entire universe. You can spend half your lifetime crawling through space in a tin can and then have Q throw a hissy fit and "poof" you back to where you started.
It reduces humanity to below the level of ants, in its own eyes, and rightly so. The existence of Q means there's little point to doing more than porno on the holodeck, and Q could even ruin that if he wanted to.
Bring back Q? Q is what made me stop watching in the first place because, as per above, he renders the whole exercise pointless.
KFG
the smugglers maybe quite unaware of this and the more gullible ones may just get caught.
The people who do the smuggling are not peasants or petty criminals. It's an upscale crime undertaken by those who are already quite well off, by the very nature of what's required to pull it off. Smugglers in business suits driving Mercedes, who read newspapers.
And a legitimate pedigreed Purvian alpaca might bring as much as $100,000.
That's right, for a single animal. We're talking big business here. An American bred alpaca with a couple of show ribbons to its credit might well run you $30,000.
The headline is misleading. The Peruvian alpaca is in no danger. It's in danger of spreading. What's at risk is the market value of Peruvian alpaca fleece. For the most part what's going on constitutes what most people think of as "saving" an animal today.
Camalids are being reintroduced into territories in which they have become extinct.
This is a trade embargo vs. free trade/open market issue, not a "saving the poor little furry thing" issue. The only animals being moved are pedigree domestic stock. 4H club stuff. Legitimate tradable goods that the government doesn't want traded out of the country.
KFG
Well, doh!
KFG
No, at that point he was explicitly talking about individual packages and their individual licenses. That part he made perfectly clear.
It's not a big deal, but I've noticed on many occassions representatives of commercial distros misstate the GPL to imply you have fewer distribution rights than the license actually provides. And I don't mean to imply that this is some sort of company policy (although perhaps in certain cases it is), but rather a missunderstanding of the license by the individual making the statement (or his being taught a missunderstanding).
KFG
Each of these licenses applies to the single package it comes with and allows you to make as many copies of the software as you want and give them to whoever you want, provided you do not _sell_ the software.
I would only take exception to this one line. Certainly you are free to sell GPLed and LGPLed software to your little heart's content. Nor is there a requirement to make the source code available for free. You may charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of distribution. CDs cost money and the labor to produce them also costs money. The GPL doesn't expect you to go broke supplying free CDs.
Perhaps he meant that line only to apply to the licenses of packages that were not released under the GPL, such as the artistic license, but he did not make that clear.
Of course with the BSD license nearly anything goes so long as you don't modify the copyright statements.
KFG
I pefer that they concentrate on the former.
It is an unpleasant fact of life that if you don't make sufficient of the latter you get rather little of the former. We must all eat our peck of dirt and shit before we die. Some of us have to shovel it too. . . but I didn't mean to start talking about marketing.
No need repeating yourself.
Touche, mon ami.
KFG
Yeah, but then all it would have done after that is emit a high pitched and annoying whine while scratching up Mars.
KFG
"Well, we've just proven that it won't work. 10. . .9. . . 8. . . 7. . ."
KFG
ST:Voyager
(ok, ok, its not the Enterprise)
I am not responsible for what not the Enterprise did in Star Trek:Voyager.
I also mentioned that the LEM, which was known to make a soft landing or two, did not fly. It would have been just irrelevant to show me a picture of the space shuttle flying.
What else from Star Trek might work? Well, pretty much anything you look at and think "Oh. That might work."
They didn't just make everything up from nothing to do the show. They relied on current knowledge. They didn't do any science. Saucers have known aerodynamic qualities ( and any number of us in the 60s made "flying" devices of one sort or another by gluing two paper plates together, even before Star Trek). If you bang matter into antimatter you'll get energy. If you make clocks out of rotating cylinders. . . the whole thing ends up looking silly because you couldn't even predict simple technologies just a few years out.
The model is interesting, but doesn't mean or imply anything at all about Star Trek "technology." It isn't even a new idea, it just has a new web page.
KFG
The Enterprise did not fly.
Neither did the LEM.
KFG
"Insightful"?
Beats hell outta me. I expected it to go over people's heads and get modded down as redundant, but I couldn't resist.
KFG