Looks like Harry Browne's page uses xhtml transitional - with all the lowercase tags. That would make him by far the best, as that's now the official w3c recommendation.
Incidentally, anyone know where a good comprehensive xhtml tutorial would be? Or a good xhtml WYSIWYG editor?
Aren't there already free (as in speech) command line compilers for windows? Haven't the GNU tools been ported? What good is having this one from Borland? Is it better in some way, like producing faster code?
1. Al Gore: Against Online privacy and pro-government regulation of the internet. Even favors mandatory hardware additions to computers to enable easy goverment access (clipper chips).
2. John McCain: Favors governemnt regulation of the internet. Taxes are only the first step towards deeper regulation. Bureaucracy breeds bureaucracy.
How anyone who is a techno-voter could waste their time pulling the lever for either of these men, I do not know.
So who do you suggest?
I would guess that the right wing conservatives would be worse about this - most are (and I know for sure that George W IS) in bed with the religious right, southern baptist and the like, and nothing would please them more than to legislate morality onto the internet. Sure, they probably wouldn't tax it, but they'd want a stronger version of the CDA for starters...
So basically we draw the conclusion that none of the major candidates support our wishes in the technology arena. Here's my question - should we vote for the one that most closely does (either Gore or McCain, I'm not really sure which) and at least try to get the lesser of the evils, or should we make a statement by choosing a third party candidate that won't win, but whose thinking is more in line with our own?
What would MSDOS have to do with spying on communications back when IBM included it with their PCs?
It wasn't even a network operating system, and the Internet was not exactly a widely used public network at the time.
-- grappler
Re:Swedes have it all wrong
on
Brainball!
·
· Score: 2
Brainball should involve the greater amount of brain activity allowing the ball to move. This would make the game come out something along the lines of the Star Trek mental wrestling match on the planet of the greek telepaths (telekinetics for the purists.)
But your brain might just be working "smarter", not "harder". Recall the article about increased brain activity resulting from sleep deprivation. That might be a way to cheat actually...
"Sorry, we'll have to take back your medal - tests indicate you've deprived yourself of sleep leading up to the game. It's an unfair advantage, and it's bad for your health..."
Dan Quayle Polly Shore Cathy Ireland Kato Kailan (sp?) Lou from Littleton (a local radio personality, don't ask) Norm MacDonald Joe Bob (interrupts some cable movies to annoy people) hmm, that's about all I can think of at the moment...
I believe grappler was refering to demands on the Linux community as a whole. Obviously the correct response in that case is "Here's the source. Have a nice day". The Linux community as a whole has no other obligations.
Yup. I wholeheartedly agree. Rereading my last post, I realize I was in a strange mood when I typed it. I was thinking of companies that would try to treat the "Linux Delover collective" as if they were a company that existed to serve the needs of the market, which it of course it is not. Companies that want something developed have 3 choices: 1. Pay someone to do it (M$ or anyone else) 2. Ask the Linux people to include it, and show that there is a need. If they agree, they'll do it. 3. Do it yourself. If it involves modifying the source to a GPL'd product, or if you just feel like it, rerelease the source to the public.
"Here's the source, have a nice day" pretty much sums it up perfectly:-)
Obviously, if an individual programmer enters into a contractual agreement to create new or modify existing software, then that's a completely different situation, and, you're right, neither response would be acceptable.
Couldn't agree with you more:-)
People, let's not forget that Linux is something most of its developers do in their time off.
I thought this article would be about how we need to clean up our advocacy act, lest we turn off those we try to convert.
Instead, he's insisting he's right about the things he wrote about linux. I agree with his assessment of what end users expect and need, but this part caught my eye:
As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase. New feature ideas and bug reports will no longer go onto a "wish list"; they will go onto a "hot list." You will face pressure to add 50 new items to the next release, when it really ought to have 10. Wealthy organizations, accustomed to getting their way, will demand impossible schedules from you, and then complain if the quality is not perfect.
I have two responses to this.
1. God, I sure hope not. I hope it never comes to that. Let's make sure it doesn't.
2. Tell those "wealthy organizations accostomed to getting their way" to take their "schedules" and shove them. We have no time for that. If they want crappy software with lots of features, point them to the borg in the northwest. They'll come crawling back.
If this bill actually gets overturned as a result of these phone calls, could we conclude that Slashdot has made a small but significant difference in politics?
I think the reaction he gets is partly due to us seeing so much of his writing without any other actual "essay writers" on this site. We see his pieces at least, what, two or three times a week? If I read something from ANYONE that often, I'd get tired of it. It's not personal.
We should reduce the frequency to maybe 3 times a month, tops, and add another writer or two to do the same thing.
Translation: Source code should be available to everyone.
RMS himself would tell you that the source code is not enough. He would say "freedom" implying an absence of restrictions on people's freedom to modify the source as they see fit.
Of course, that doesn't change the point you were making - RMS has stuck to that point longer than I have been alive:-)
rereading that article, I am drawn back to the days when:
-There was no moderation -There was no need for moderation
and its kinda interesting that one guy said, "only on a friday could something like this be posted" and now, here it is on a friday when it was reposted!
I've always wondered exactly what purpose it is that sleep serves. It is obviously not just for resting our organs and muscles - I see no reason for the impossibility of creatures whose bodies need no sleep.
It is obviously a necessity for the brain. Perhaps for consciousness to occur, there have to be periods of unconsciousness for some kind of routine "maintenance" that the brain's neural network performs on itself, somehow tied in with dreams.
I have absolutely no background on this - the above is just my random musings as I started learning about neural nets and AI. I was hoping to start a discussion or catch the eye of someone who has studied this extensively. What is the current state of human knowledge about sleep? Is it still mostly a mystery?
I don't think that his opinions in his writing are either stark or rehashes of "popular"/. opinion. I think most people (outside of this corner of the web), especially those unfamiliar with technology would consider his views vastly different from opinions they are used to seeing in op-ed pages - that is, liberals and conservatives.
I think the reason his opinions sound that way to US are because we see so much of his writing.
Here's a suggestion: Katz, make your pieces a little shorter, and write less often - say, no more than three essays per month. Slashdot, get one or two more authors that like to write about various aspects of technology/society, and have them do the same thing - a couple of essays per month.
That way, we'll get perspectives from more than one person, and we won't read so MUCH of one person's writings.
I'm sure most of you have seen the sequel to the original "Absent minded professor" in which the professor moves from Flubber to "Flubber Gas".
The reason I bring this up is that I saw a couple things in this discussion that make me think that that movie was a tribute to Tesla.
He also mapped the EMF spectrum into 'octaves', found out how to control rainfall and extract nitrogen out of the air. Where is this knowledge being used today?
In the movie, the prof discovers how to create his own rain. When he tried to do it on a large scale, he accidentally shattered all the glass in a several block radius. Accoring to another post here, Tesla also did an experiment in which he shattered many windows in the vicinity, using a steam engine oscillator of some sort. And, in the end of the movie when the prof is in court for his damages to the windows, a farmer comes in showing the positive side effect of huge vegetables created when NITROGEN precipitated into the ground during the experiment.
In his Colorado Springs lab in 1899, he sent waves of energy all the way through the Earth, causing them to bounce back to the source (providing the theory for today's accurate earthquake seismic stations). When the waves came back, he added more electricity to it.
The result? The largest man-made lightning bolt ever recorded - 130 feet! - a world's record still unbroken!
The accompanying thunder was heard 22 miles away. The entire meadow surrounding his lab had a strange blue glow, similar to that of St. Elmo's Fire.
This sounds like the earlier discussion of blue lightning. With a wide path of electromagnetic waves resulting in a large lightning bolt, wouldn't that support the "burning silicon" theory? What do you guys think?
Slashdot Mirror
1.Write a C++ program incorporating the following nested loop:
for ( i = 1; i = 5 ; i++)
{
for ( j = 1; j = 5; j++)
cout '*';
cout endl;
}
What is the output of the program?
2.Modify the program so that the output looks like the following:
******
*****
****
***
**
*
3.For EC make the following with a single asterisk in nested for loops
*
***
*****
*******
*********
*******
*****
***
*
--
grappler
Looks like Harry Browne's page uses xhtml transitional - with all the lowercase tags. That would make him by far the best, as that's now the official w3c recommendation.
Incidentally, anyone know where a good comprehensive xhtml tutorial would be? Or a good xhtml WYSIWYG editor?
--
grappler
Created C++?????
I believe that would have been Bjarne Stroustrup.
--
grappler
Aren't there already free (as in speech) command line compilers for windows? Haven't the GNU tools been ported? What good is having this one from Borland? Is it better in some way, like producing faster code?
--
grappler
Those things look pretty tasty. Anyone had one?
--
grappler
1. Al Gore: Against Online privacy and pro-government regulation of the internet. Even favors mandatory hardware additions to computers to enable easy goverment access (clipper chips).
2. John McCain: Favors governemnt regulation of the internet. Taxes are only the first step towards deeper regulation. Bureaucracy breeds bureaucracy.
How anyone who is a techno-voter could waste their time pulling the lever for either of these men, I do not know.
So who do you suggest?
I would guess that the right wing conservatives would be worse about this - most are (and I know for sure that George W IS) in bed with the religious right, southern baptist and the like, and nothing would please them more than to legislate morality onto the internet. Sure, they probably wouldn't tax it, but they'd want a stronger version of the CDA for starters...
So basically we draw the conclusion that none of the major candidates support our wishes in the technology arena. Here's my question - should we vote for the one that most closely does (either Gore or McCain, I'm not really sure which) and at least try to get the lesser of the evils, or should we make a statement by choosing a third party candidate that won't win, but whose thinking is more in line with our own?
--
grappler
yeah, I stood corrected when they prounced Donald Knuth's name. (They said it as "Nooth", I had just assumed it was prounced "Nuth")
'Tis an ill wind that blows no good, I guess.
--
grappler
What would MSDOS have to do with spying on communications back when IBM included it with their PCs?
It wasn't even a network operating system, and the Internet was not exactly a widely used public network at the time.
--
grappler
Brainball should involve the greater amount of brain activity allowing the ball to move. This would make the game come out something along the lines of the Star Trek mental wrestling match on the planet of the greek telepaths (telekinetics for the purists.)
But your brain might just be working "smarter", not "harder". Recall the article about increased brain activity resulting from sleep deprivation. That might be a way to cheat actually...
"Sorry, we'll have to take back your medal - tests indicate you've deprived yourself of sleep leading up to the game. It's an unfair advantage, and it's bad for your health..."
--
grappler
I noticed that right after I posted. It's Kathy with a K, Pauly Shore, and McDonald...
:-)
i need to take just a little more time before I hit "submit"... hmmm, maybe that's what "Preview" is for...
sorry if I caused you any pain.
--
grappler
Scott and Dave are cool, and KOA can definately do without:
Both Reggies (Rivers and MacDaneoo)
Tom Caldera (he's pretty stupid)
Sebastian Metz (he should probably be included on my team, actually)
but Lou from Littleton, with all his "ummm"s and "uhhh"s, stays.
--
grappler
Dan Quayle
Polly Shore
Cathy Ireland
Kato Kailan (sp?)
Lou from Littleton (a local radio personality, don't ask)
Norm MacDonald
Joe Bob (interrupts some cable movies to annoy people)
hmm, that's about all I can think of at the moment...
--
grappler
I believe grappler was refering to demands on the Linux community as a whole. Obviously the correct response in that case is "Here's the source. Have a nice day". The Linux community as a whole has no other obligations.
:-)
:-)
Yup. I wholeheartedly agree. Rereading my last post, I realize I was in a strange mood when I typed it. I was thinking of companies that would try to treat the "Linux Delover collective" as if they were a company that existed to serve the needs of the market, which it of course it is not. Companies that want something developed have 3 choices:
1. Pay someone to do it (M$ or anyone else)
2. Ask the Linux people to include it, and show that there is a need. If they agree, they'll do it.
3. Do it yourself. If it involves modifying the source to a GPL'd product, or if you just feel like it, rerelease the source to the public.
"Here's the source, have a nice day" pretty much sums it up perfectly
Obviously, if an individual programmer enters into a contractual agreement to create new or modify existing software, then that's a completely different situation, and, you're right, neither response would be acceptable.
Couldn't agree with you more
People, let's not forget that Linux is something most of its developers do in their time off.
--
grappler
I thought this article would be about how we need to clean up our advocacy act, lest we turn off those we try to convert.
Instead, he's insisting he's right about the things he wrote about linux. I agree with his assessment of what end users expect and need, but this part caught my eye:
As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase. New feature ideas and bug reports will no longer go onto a "wish list"; they will go onto a "hot list." You will face pressure to add 50 new items to the next release, when it really ought to have 10. Wealthy organizations, accustomed to getting their way, will demand impossible schedules from you, and then complain if the quality is not perfect.
I have two responses to this.
1. God, I sure hope not. I hope it never comes to that. Let's make sure it doesn't.
2. Tell those "wealthy organizations accostomed to getting their way" to take their "schedules" and shove them. We have no time for that. If they want crappy software with lots of features, point them to the borg in the northwest. They'll come crawling back.
--
grappler
If this bill actually gets overturned as a result of these phone calls, could we conclude that Slashdot has made a small but significant difference in politics?
:-)
I like to think so
--
grappler
I think the reaction he gets is partly due to us seeing so much of his writing without any other actual "essay writers" on this site. We see his pieces at least, what, two or three times a week? If I read something from ANYONE that often, I'd get tired of it. It's not personal.
We should reduce the frequency to maybe 3 times a month, tops, and add another writer or two to do the same thing.
What do you all think?
--
grappler
you're right about the posts, but then, look at the article - it's about a textmode quake, for god's sake.
--
grappler
RMS: Source code should be available to everyone.
:-)
Translation: Source code should be available to everyone.
RMS himself would tell you that the source code is not enough. He would say "freedom" implying an absence of restrictions on people's freedom to modify the source as they see fit.
Of course, that doesn't change the point you were making - RMS has stuck to that point longer than I have been alive
--
grappler
Anyone know what happened to the BeOS port of Mozilla? The last version they released was Milstone 8. I hope it isn't dead...
--
grappler
In all seriousness - how does that compare to windows NT, with all the service packs?
How does it compare to win98? how about to win98SE?
They're all buggy, and we all know that.
So is it getting much worse withW2k, or is it getting a little better, or is it about the same as the others?
--
grappler
No kidding...
rereading that article, I am drawn back to the days when:
-There was no moderation
-There was no need for moderation
and its kinda interesting that one guy said, "only on a friday could something like this be posted" and now, here it is on a friday when it was reposted!
--
grappler
I've always wondered exactly what purpose it is that sleep serves. It is obviously not just for resting our organs and muscles - I see no reason for the impossibility of creatures whose bodies need no sleep.
It is obviously a necessity for the brain. Perhaps for consciousness to occur, there have to be periods of unconsciousness for some kind of routine "maintenance" that the brain's neural network performs on itself, somehow tied in with dreams.
I have absolutely no background on this - the above is just my random musings as I started learning about neural nets and AI. I was hoping to start a discussion or catch the eye of someone who has studied this extensively. What is the current state of human knowledge about sleep? Is it still mostly a mystery?
--
grappler
I don't think that his opinions in his writing are either stark or rehashes of "popular" /. opinion. I think most people (outside of this corner of the web), especially those unfamiliar with technology would consider his views vastly different from opinions they are used to seeing in op-ed pages - that is, liberals and conservatives.
I think the reason his opinions sound that way to US are because we see so much of his writing.
Here's a suggestion: Katz, make your pieces a little shorter, and write less often - say, no more than three essays per month. Slashdot, get one or two more authors that like to write about various aspects of technology/society, and have them do the same thing - a couple of essays per month.
That way, we'll get perspectives from more than one person, and we won't read so MUCH of one person's writings.
--
grappler
I'm sure most of you have seen the sequel to the original "Absent minded professor" in which the professor moves from Flubber to "Flubber Gas".
The reason I bring this up is that I saw a couple things in this discussion that make me think that that movie was a tribute to Tesla.
He also mapped the EMF spectrum into 'octaves', found out how to control rainfall and extract nitrogen out of the air. Where is this knowledge being used today?
In the movie, the prof discovers how to create his own rain. When he tried to do it on a large scale, he accidentally shattered all the glass in a several block radius. Accoring to another post here, Tesla also did an experiment in which he shattered many windows in the vicinity, using a steam engine oscillator of some sort. And, in the end of the movie when the prof is in court for his damages to the windows, a farmer comes in showing the positive side effect of huge vegetables created when NITROGEN precipitated into the ground during the experiment.
Am I going crazy?
--
grappler
In his Colorado Springs lab in 1899, he sent waves of energy all the way through the Earth, causing them to bounce back to the source (providing the theory for today's accurate earthquake seismic stations). When the waves came back, he added more electricity to it.
The result? The largest man-made lightning bolt ever recorded - 130 feet! - a world's record still unbroken!
The accompanying thunder was heard 22 miles away. The entire meadow surrounding his lab had a strange blue glow, similar to that of St. Elmo's Fire.
This sounds like the earlier discussion of blue lightning. With a wide path of electromagnetic waves resulting in a large lightning bolt, wouldn't that support the "burning silicon" theory? What do you guys think?
--
grappler