While there are a few criticisms I have of Unity, I think that overall, it's a significant improvement, and I find it easier to use than any other GUI I have tried.
I've been using Ubuntu since Hardy, and this is the first version that the other members of the household really like using.
"Roguelike" means "like Rogue", no more and no less. There's no need to try to seek some deeper meaning in there.
It's a silly problem, really, in which there's an organic development of forms, and then someone decides to justify their personal preferences by making up some abstract definition after the fact so that they can claim that things they don't like are objectively inferior to things they do like.
Once again, I find a connection between my politics and my preferred desktop operating system: both are completely ignored in mainstream media and in most surveys.
I know it's a popular Slashdot meme to say things are going downhill, and I am well aware of the curious technophobic streak that runs through a lot of the people here... but to what end?
This has been really bugging me. I started following Slashdot specifically to keep current on trends in IT. Again and again, I see not just recent innovations, but well-established trends derided as unworkable fad ideas. I was already used to the derision of cloud computing when I had an interview at a company that had been doing "software as a service" for over ten years.
Why? My guess is that it has to do with the pattern I've seen of IT grognards who were hired to set up a new system, and remain in place, watching over that system. They're often highly skilled in the techniques that were current when they set up the system, but they haven't updated their skills; new techniques come to them as suggestions to scrap everything and rebuild the system on new principles, and they become used to arguing against the use of new techniques, at emphasizing the disadvantages and dismissing the advantages. They've fallen into a trap.
There's a line from Nietzche, about how the saddest moment in a person's life is when they stop trying to prove what they can do.
That sounds like a good description of Carrier Grade NAT. My understanding is that it's the presumptive solution to keep IPv4 alive until IPv6 is fully deployed.
The downside is that it will mean that you've got NATs inside NATs, and that users will be competing for ports, both making for a poor experience for end users. I think it's a mistake to assume that users running servers is unusual -- hosting FPS deathmatches is quite common, for instance.
An upside is that the moderately technically inclined -- those who do want to offer services on the Web, or use peer-to-peer services, will have a practical reason to get IPv6.
In terms of migration, you could let nodes autoconfigure until you get around to manually configuring them. You can mix autoconfiguration and manual configuration in an IPv6 LAN, just as you can mix DHCP and manual configuration in an IPv4 LAN.
How many people do you suppose are hosting FPS matches right now?
There are other categories of online computer games in which regular users are hosting other users, but I'd guess that FPS games are the most common case, and the one in which small differences in ping time make the largest difference.
How likely is it that a router would have a physical failure such that the firewall is disabled, but everything else works? A software bug could disable a firewall, of course, but if it's a cheap consumer router, then it would presumably be in wide use, and so the bug should be spotted.
Also, every consumer desktop OS I know comes with a software firewall. There's a lack of IPv6 firewalls at present, though, which is a real concern.
There was some online graphic novel I once saw with that as the running gag. The artist also had a really good autobiographical peace about 70s futurism and how it disappointed him. I haven't been able to find the comics online again since I read them the first time.
I expect many fans of one game would enjoy the other. I'm more likely to buy Minecraft than Skyrim this year, but mostly because my desktop is old and feeble.
By the way, last time I looked at the Minecraft site, it had sold over a million licenses. Isn't that a colossal success already?
It seems to me that most topics in science are comprehensible, in their broad outlines, to someone with a high school level grounding in basic science. The theories that seem to be hardest to understand are theories that are in dispute among scientists.
The Wikipedia article on Narco submarines, linked in the summary, estimates the construction cost of (older) semi-submersible craft at $2 million. They're scuttled after a one-way trip. If they're spotted by the Coast Guard, they're scuttled, with a complete loss of the cargo and (now) the arrest of the crew. They're spending enormous amounts of wealth on risky ventures, and have been doing so for some time. It seems reasonable to conclude that the profits are even more enormous..
I'm wondering if the name chosen, Canterbury, is some sort of Canterbury Tales reference -- a diverse group of travellers? I didn't see any jokes in the names of people quoted, but I assume those are actual people associated with the different Linux distributions.
I've always been dubious about gaming mice, because the advertising usually focuses on their high resolutions. Even obsolete ball mice had resolutions high enough that were capable of producing more data than could be transmitted through the interface.
It used to be suggested to use old PS/2 interfaces instead of USB interfaces, because it was easier to increase the hardware polling rate on PS/2 interfaces. However, even then, the real problem was that the original default polling rate for PS/2 mice was 40hz. Increasing the polling rate to 80hz made a noticeable difference; that later became the default polling rate for PS/2 mice (I think with Windows XP, on the Microsoft side of the fence). The default polling rate for USB is 125hz. It's debatable whether it's humanly possible to perceive the difference in resolution this makes.
The advantages of optical mice are better ergonomics and less trouble with crud collecting on moving parts. The only thing that distinguishes modern optical mice is ergonomics. Choose the mouse that fits your hand; the rest is irrelevant.
There was a lot of Hell that Russia went through under Stalin; only part of it was due to methodical plans drawn up by Stalin. He became secretary general of the Communist Party when the main function of that office was to keep track of the membership lists of the Communist Party, which was how he had lists of hundreds of Communist Party members to execute. You can certainly argue that Stalin was responsible for the enormous numbers of deaths due to famine, forced collectivization, and war, but none of that involved efficient accounting systems.
More generally, I'm not arguing from convenience. Different political situations require different political tactics. In general, if some sort of open and democratic society is your goal, then you want to be as public and open about your politics as you can afford to be. If you're in a society in which the state really doesn't give a damn what politics you have, so long as you don't block traffic, then you should be open about your politics, so people can find you and talk to you. If you're under a repressive government, but with a rapidly growing political movement opposing that government, then it's even more important to be open about your politics. It's only under the limited circumstance in which a movement for democracy has been defeated, and the repressive government is hunting down the activist leaders, that you want to keep a low profile.
In the US, there's a long history of completely wrong-headed paranoia about the mere possibility of future repression, pre-empting politcal organization and action in the present. It's the political organization and action in the present that is needed to prevent repression in the future. If you're not willing to take small risks when it's relatively safe, you're not going to be able to take large risks when it's dangerous.
I should point out that I do think that Malte Spitz, the German Green party politician, is right to ask questions about the collection of data and about how it might be used. We need to work out limits and new rules about privacy. What I object to is Stallman's retreat when no retreat is necessary. Refusing to use mobile phones because the data they generate *could* be used against you is foolish when the primary use of mobile phones is communication, and free communication is what is needed to advance democracy.
Both of the replies to my previous comment seem to be sound advice in themselves, except that the advice offered is the advice I was already following. I've got a list of concepts and techniques I've only loosely been introduced to, about which I've read a few articles, that I intend to look into more closely; my project for my next few days off was to draw up a list of programming languages I might want to learn, and the pros and cons of each, in order to decide what to learn next.
The problem I have is that, in the classes I took on C++, there were things I already knew a little about that I would ask instructors about, only to be blown off as they were "advanced topics": things like libraries (just type in the INCLUDE lines we give you and don't ask questions), make files, revision control systems, or IDEs. The instructor for a class on Perl was more flexible, but we were also covering more material in less time. Okay, fine, I'll learn about those subjects from the abundant free documentation -- the main problem is knowing at what point to work them in. But I can handle that.
What I have real trouble with is the sense I get from some professional developers that the stuff I barely know about is already irrelevant. I barely know what an API is, and I've never worked with one. The idea that "simple APIs" are gone, and that it's all about the choice of framework, is an alarming idea, as I have no idea what a framework is. I'm guessing that it's some sort of integrated suite of libraries and plug-ins for IDEs, but all I really know of.NET is that it has something to do with C# and F#, and a lot of Microsoft products require.NET installation.
Slashdot Mirror
You're obviously a paid shill for the DHMO industry. How much are they paying you, huh?
No, you're not the only one.
While there are a few criticisms I have of Unity, I think that overall, it's a significant improvement, and I find it easier to use than any other GUI I have tried.
I've been using Ubuntu since Hardy, and this is the first version that the other members of the household really like using.
Play rogue
If you play another game, and it seems a lot like rogue, then it's roguelike.
"Roguelike" means "like Rogue", no more and no less. There's no need to try to seek some deeper meaning in there.
It's a silly problem, really, in which there's an organic development of forms, and then someone decides to justify their personal preferences by making up some abstract definition after the fact so that they can claim that things they don't like are objectively inferior to things they do like.
Full disclosure: I enjoy playing the Android port of Angband on my T-Mobile G2.
Some of them did, yes.
There were, and are, several competing schools of thought on socialism.
Right. That should be eliminated.
Congratulations! You are the first person who has actually read the EULA!
Seriously, how many people do you think actually read the EULA, and saw that clause, and understood it, before using their new device?
Once again, I find a connection between my politics and my preferred desktop operating system: both are completely ignored in mainstream media and in most surveys.
I know it's a popular Slashdot meme to say things are going downhill, and I am well aware of the curious technophobic streak that runs through a lot of the people here... but to what end?
This has been really bugging me. I started following Slashdot specifically to keep current on trends in IT. Again and again, I see not just recent innovations, but well-established trends derided as unworkable fad ideas. I was already used to the derision of cloud computing when I had an interview at a company that had been doing "software as a service" for over ten years.
Why? My guess is that it has to do with the pattern I've seen of IT grognards who were hired to set up a new system, and remain in place, watching over that system. They're often highly skilled in the techniques that were current when they set up the system, but they haven't updated their skills; new techniques come to them as suggestions to scrap everything and rebuild the system on new principles, and they become used to arguing against the use of new techniques, at emphasizing the disadvantages and dismissing the advantages. They've fallen into a trap.
There's a line from Nietzche, about how the saddest moment in a person's life is when they stop trying to prove what they can do.
That sounds like a good description of Carrier Grade NAT. My understanding is that it's the presumptive solution to keep IPv4 alive until IPv6 is fully deployed.
The downside is that it will mean that you've got NATs inside NATs, and that users will be competing for ports, both making for a poor experience for end users. I think it's a mistake to assume that users running servers is unusual -- hosting FPS deathmatches is quite common, for instance.
An upside is that the moderately technically inclined -- those who do want to offer services on the Web, or use peer-to-peer services, will have a practical reason to get IPv6.
In terms of migration, you could let nodes autoconfigure until you get around to manually configuring them. You can mix autoconfiguration and manual configuration in an IPv6 LAN, just as you can mix DHCP and manual configuration in an IPv4 LAN.
How many people do you suppose are hosting FPS matches right now?
There are other categories of online computer games in which regular users are hosting other users, but I'd guess that FPS games are the most common case, and the one in which small differences in ping time make the largest difference.
How likely is it that a router would have a physical failure such that the firewall is disabled, but everything else works? A software bug could disable a firewall, of course, but if it's a cheap consumer router, then it would presumably be in wide use, and so the bug should be spotted.
Also, every consumer desktop OS I know comes with a software firewall. There's a lack of IPv6 firewalls at present, though, which is a real concern.
There was some online graphic novel I once saw with that as the running gag. The artist also had a really good autobiographical peace about 70s futurism and how it disappointed him. I haven't been able to find the comics online again since I read them the first time.
My G2, running Android 2.2, seems to work fine on my dual-stack LAN, and prefers IPv6 over IPv4. So it looks like the potential is there.
I expect many fans of one game would enjoy the other. I'm more likely to buy Minecraft than Skyrim this year, but mostly because my desktop is old and feeble.
By the way, last time I looked at the Minecraft site, it had sold over a million licenses. Isn't that a colossal success already?
It seems to me that most topics in science are comprehensible, in their broad outlines, to someone with a high school level grounding in basic science. The theories that seem to be hardest to understand are theories that are in dispute among scientists.
The Wikipedia article on Narco submarines, linked in the summary, estimates the construction cost of (older) semi-submersible craft at $2 million. They're scuttled after a one-way trip. If they're spotted by the Coast Guard, they're scuttled, with a complete loss of the cargo and (now) the arrest of the crew. They're spending enormous amounts of wealth on risky ventures, and have been doing so for some time. It seems reasonable to conclude that the profits are even more enormous..
BSD will never die. Just look at those uptimes!
I'm wondering if the name chosen, Canterbury, is some sort of Canterbury Tales reference -- a diverse group of travellers? I didn't see any jokes in the names of people quoted, but I assume those are actual people associated with the different Linux distributions.
It's just a matter of doing it old school.
Wow. I hadn't seen it tallied up like that.
*Banging on Google's door*
Let me in! Let me in! I want off this rock!
I've always been dubious about gaming mice, because the advertising usually focuses on their high resolutions. Even obsolete ball mice had resolutions high enough that were capable of producing more data than could be transmitted through the interface.
It used to be suggested to use old PS/2 interfaces instead of USB interfaces, because it was easier to increase the hardware polling rate on PS/2 interfaces. However, even then, the real problem was that the original default polling rate for PS/2 mice was 40hz. Increasing the polling rate to 80hz made a noticeable difference; that later became the default polling rate for PS/2 mice (I think with Windows XP, on the Microsoft side of the fence). The default polling rate for USB is 125hz. It's debatable whether it's humanly possible to perceive the difference in resolution this makes.
The advantages of optical mice are better ergonomics and less trouble with crud collecting on moving parts. The only thing that distinguishes modern optical mice is ergonomics. Choose the mouse that fits your hand; the rest is irrelevant.
There was a lot of Hell that Russia went through under Stalin; only part of it was due to methodical plans drawn up by Stalin. He became secretary general of the Communist Party when the main function of that office was to keep track of the membership lists of the Communist Party, which was how he had lists of hundreds of Communist Party members to execute. You can certainly argue that Stalin was responsible for the enormous numbers of deaths due to famine, forced collectivization, and war, but none of that involved efficient accounting systems.
More generally, I'm not arguing from convenience. Different political situations require different political tactics. In general, if some sort of open and democratic society is your goal, then you want to be as public and open about your politics as you can afford to be. If you're in a society in which the state really doesn't give a damn what politics you have, so long as you don't block traffic, then you should be open about your politics, so people can find you and talk to you. If you're under a repressive government, but with a rapidly growing political movement opposing that government, then it's even more important to be open about your politics. It's only under the limited circumstance in which a movement for democracy has been defeated, and the repressive government is hunting down the activist leaders, that you want to keep a low profile.
In the US, there's a long history of completely wrong-headed paranoia about the mere possibility of future repression, pre-empting politcal organization and action in the present. It's the political organization and action in the present that is needed to prevent repression in the future. If you're not willing to take small risks when it's relatively safe, you're not going to be able to take large risks when it's dangerous.
I should point out that I do think that Malte Spitz, the German Green party politician, is right to ask questions about the collection of data and about how it might be used. We need to work out limits and new rules about privacy. What I object to is Stallman's retreat when no retreat is necessary. Refusing to use mobile phones because the data they generate *could* be used against you is foolish when the primary use of mobile phones is communication, and free communication is what is needed to advance democracy.
Both of the replies to my previous comment seem to be sound advice in themselves, except that the advice offered is the advice I was already following. I've got a list of concepts and techniques I've only loosely been introduced to, about which I've read a few articles, that I intend to look into more closely; my project for my next few days off was to draw up a list of programming languages I might want to learn, and the pros and cons of each, in order to decide what to learn next.
The problem I have is that, in the classes I took on C++, there were things I already knew a little about that I would ask instructors about, only to be blown off as they were "advanced topics": things like libraries (just type in the INCLUDE lines we give you and don't ask questions), make files, revision control systems, or IDEs. The instructor for a class on Perl was more flexible, but we were also covering more material in less time. Okay, fine, I'll learn about those subjects from the abundant free documentation -- the main problem is knowing at what point to work them in. But I can handle that.
What I have real trouble with is the sense I get from some professional developers that the stuff I barely know about is already irrelevant. I barely know what an API is, and I've never worked with one. The idea that "simple APIs" are gone, and that it's all about the choice of framework, is an alarming idea, as I have no idea what a framework is. I'm guessing that it's some sort of integrated suite of libraries and plug-ins for IDEs, but all I really know of .NET is that it has something to do with C# and F#, and a lot of Microsoft products require .NET installation.