Actually, the modem is supported by a free driver; the Linuxant driver before relicensing. Use that instead; in my experience it's quite stable and fast as long as it works with your kernel.
Character set of article is "MacRoman", MS Word is specifying it as "macintosh", which Mozilla doesn't recognise. This messes up Word's silly left/right quotation marks and apostrophes. Switching character set manually cleans things up.
You're off by a factor of 2. US NTSC TV is 60 Hz interlaced; 60 times a second, half a frame is displayed. Changing the view 60 times a second looks smoother than changing it 30 times even though only half a frame (odd or even lines) is shown each time.
Of course, my reaction was, "What, a military without internet access?"
Why can't they get it during off duty hours?
We do, but there aren't enough computers for all of us. With 4 public computers for about 1000 conscripts, we don't get much time each. My 20 minutes are almost up. I guess I'll have to request permission to bring my own laptop and GPRS modem instead. B-)
If you would emulate a todays system, you need to emulate the graphics chips, the network card, Direct X, and god knows what else. A legal nightmare to get permission to use under emulation.
On the other hand, considering the variety of hardware available today that is used through a common interface (such as DirectX), you wouldn't have to emulate a specific graphics card; implementing DirectX using the modern hardware would suffice. As long as the emulated Windows system (or whatever) has graphics card drivers to talk to that seem to do the right thing, everything's OK even though the graphics data simply gets blasted through a reasonably simple DirectX 9 to OpenGL 5.1 wrapper (or whatever we'll be using in the future) instead of being sent to a 100% accurately emulated Geforce FX.
On the subject of software debugging techniques, I'd like to point out visual testing, which (basically) allows you to try out method calls and fiddle with variables and examine the results (including execution history) graphically. MVT is a prototype visual testing tool for Java.
In most CD burning configurations under Linux, cdrecord (or whatever burning program you are using) must be run as root as direct SCSI device access is not allowed. Start by setting the system up so that only root can burn CDs. Then, create several scripts, each of which runs cdrecord with a fixed ISO image. Make these scripts SUID root. As long as the user can't change those ISO images or fiddle with the file system to confuse the scripts, he can only burn the specified ISO images.
Let me clarify that Finland has two (equal) official languages: Swedish and Finnish. The fact that only 5.58% of the population speaks Swedish as their native language (as opposed to 92.14% Finnish) has nothing to do with it. Statistics from here.
Paying off the FSF only helps if the FSF is the copyright holder. The copyright on many GPLed projects belongs to their authors, in which case Company 1 in your example doesn't gain anything, as it can still be sued by the authors.
If you make sure the break between reels is between scenes, a delay of 2 or 3 seconds between the first reel ending and the second reel starting is quite acceptable. How fast can you switch films on these projectors? Alternatively, you could have two totally separate projectors, and manually start the second one as soon the first one is done.
While it is true that many arcade games used a separate CPU to control the sound, the "sound CPU" does not produce any sound by itself.
The grandparent post was referring to the fact that many early arcade games produced sound using a custom-made assembly of analogue components (which is hard to emulate) instead of using a common synthesizer chip (which often includes some analogue synthesis circuitry; a bit easier to emulate, if the chip is well specified) or generating a digital PCM signal and pushing it through a DAC (almost trivial to emulate).
You may be right. However, this means that anyone can take GPLed code, hack a compiler to read encrypted code, and release their modifications in a useless form. Or does that violate the "preferred form for making modifications" criterion?
I think you're right; the GPL's definition of source code prevents you from releasing illegible and useless source code, but it apparently doesn't have to compile. Interesting.
This says you do NOT have to include the source for things that are a normal part of the target platform. As the target platform of the derived work is a linksys router....they don't have to provide their compilers.
Actually, my argument still holds. If the compiler isn't distributed with the router, it still violates this clause; the compiler isn't a normal part of the target platform, so it must be included. The entire point of this clause is to prevent companies from releasing GPLed code that can't be compiled because no one has the compiler. If you read the relevant paragraph of the GPL again, you should find that what they're saying is that you have to give people everything they need to compile the code that isn't included in the target platform (or, at least, all the scripts). The exception translates as "If everyone who can run this already has the necessary compiler, you don't need to distribute it.".
However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
If it's a custom compiler, it can't be normally distributed with the operating system on which the executable runs, so they have to provide it according to the above part of the GPL.
Perhaps I will someday. But I already have a stack of unread books and little time to read them.
Huh? Push it on the stack, and the next time you pop a book off the stack, you'll get it (unless you find some other book first). Methinks you're confusing your stacks and your queues.
You'll be stable all right... dead is stable ain't it?
Considering the fact that dead people decay into whatever dead people decay into a lot faster that live people decay into dead people, I'd say that the live person is the more stable form of the particle.
It's not a tempory name. That's it's offical IUPAC name.
No and yes. According to the article:
A committee will vote at this weekend's General Assembly of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in Ottawa, Canada. It is expected to approve the element's informal moniker, 'darmstadtium', and give it the chemical symbol Ds.
The systematic names and symbols for elements of atomic numbers greater than 103 are the only approved names and symbols for those elements until the approval of trivial names by IUPAC.
In other words, the systematic name is official until a trivial name is approved. This means that the systematic name, although official, is temporary. In the case of ununnilium, it may shortly be officially renamed to "darmstadtium", which would imply that the name "ununnilium" is temporary.
I hope I don't get moderated "-1, vicious pedantry" for this. B-)
...thinking that it was already called Ununnilium.
... which is pseudo-Latin for "one-one-zero-ium". It's just a temporary name consisting of the element's number and the ending "ium" to make it sound scientific.
The important part is not knowing who cast a specific vote. What we want to know is that every single vote was cast by someone who had the right to do so; i.e. nobody voted more than once.
One way to do this is to send everyone entitled to vote a randomly-generated private key, which they can then sign their vote with. The corresponding public keys can then be published together with the corresponding votes, which can then be verified. The keys must be hidden from whoever distributes them (e.g. using a sealed envelope) to prevent someone from forming a key-to-voter table. Getting the keys to the voters can be done using a similar process to that used currently for ballot authentication devices (stamps et.c.); i.e. transportation overseen by a sufficiently large amount of different people (which is currently considered sufficient to prevent tampering; most paper-based systems rely on this anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
"nettverkskort" = "network card".
"Større er bedre" means "bigger is better", while "mindre er bedre" means "smaller is better". That should help a lot with the bar graphs.
Actually, the modem is supported by a free driver; the Linuxant driver before relicensing. Use that instead; in my experience it's quite stable and fast as long as it works with your kernel.
Character set of article is "MacRoman", MS Word is specifying it as "macintosh", which Mozilla doesn't recognise. This messes up Word's silly left/right quotation marks and apostrophes. Switching character set manually cleans things up.
You're off by a factor of 2. US NTSC TV is 60 Hz interlaced; 60 times a second, half a frame is displayed. Changing the view 60 times a second looks smoother than changing it 30 times even though only half a frame (odd or even lines) is shown each time.
Of course, my reaction was, "What, a military without internet access?" Why can't they get it during off duty hours?
We do, but there aren't enough computers for all of us. With 4 public computers for about 1000 conscripts, we don't get much time each. My 20 minutes are almost up. I guess I'll have to request permission to bring my own laptop and GPRS modem instead. B-)
If you would emulate a todays system, you need to emulate the graphics chips, the network card, Direct X, and god knows what else. A legal nightmare to get permission to use under emulation.
On the other hand, considering the variety of hardware available today that is used through a common interface (such as DirectX), you wouldn't have to emulate a specific graphics card; implementing DirectX using the modern hardware would suffice. As long as the emulated Windows system (or whatever) has graphics card drivers to talk to that seem to do the right thing, everything's OK even though the graphics data simply gets blasted through a reasonably simple DirectX 9 to OpenGL 5.1 wrapper (or whatever we'll be using in the future) instead of being sent to a 100% accurately emulated Geforce FX.On the subject of software debugging techniques, I'd like to point out visual testing, which (basically) allows you to try out method calls and fiddle with variables and examine the results (including execution history) graphically. MVT is a prototype visual testing tool for Java.
In most CD burning configurations under Linux, cdrecord (or whatever burning program you are using) must be run as root as direct SCSI device access is not allowed. Start by setting the system up so that only root can burn CDs. Then, create several scripts, each of which runs cdrecord with a fixed ISO image. Make these scripts SUID root. As long as the user can't change those ISO images or fiddle with the file system to confuse the scripts, he can only burn the specified ISO images.
Let me clarify that Finland has two (equal) official languages: Swedish and Finnish. The fact that only 5.58% of the population speaks Swedish as their native language (as opposed to 92.14% Finnish) has nothing to do with it. Statistics from here.
Paying off the FSF only helps if the FSF is the copyright holder. The copyright on many GPLed projects belongs to their authors, in which case Company 1 in your example doesn't gain anything, as it can still be sued by the authors.
If you make sure the break between reels is between scenes, a delay of 2 or 3 seconds between the first reel ending and the second reel starting is quite acceptable. How fast can you switch films on these projectors? Alternatively, you could have two totally separate projectors, and manually start the second one as soon the first one is done.
it's VIEWING them in DOS that gets tricky.
Not with this little viewer.
While it is true that many arcade games used a separate CPU to control the sound, the "sound CPU" does not produce any sound by itself.
The grandparent post was referring to the fact that many early arcade games produced sound using a custom-made assembly of analogue components (which is hard to emulate) instead of using a common synthesizer chip (which often includes some analogue synthesis circuitry; a bit easier to emulate, if the chip is well specified) or generating a digital PCM signal and pushing it through a DAC (almost trivial to emulate).
You may be right. However, this means that anyone can take GPLed code, hack a compiler to read encrypted code, and release their modifications in a useless form. Or does that violate the "preferred form for making modifications" criterion?
I think you're right; the GPL's definition of source code prevents you from releasing illegible and useless source code, but it apparently doesn't have to compile. Interesting.
This says you do NOT have to include the source for things that are a normal part of the target platform. As the target platform of the derived work is a linksys router....they don't have to provide their compilers.
Actually, my argument still holds. If the compiler isn't distributed with the router, it still violates this clause; the compiler isn't a normal part of the target platform, so it must be included. The entire point of this clause is to prevent companies from releasing GPLed code that can't be compiled because no one has the compiler. If you read the relevant paragraph of the GPL again, you should find that what they're saying is that you have to give people everything they need to compile the code that isn't included in the target platform (or, at least, all the scripts). The exception translates as "If everyone who can run this already has the necessary compiler, you don't need to distribute it.".
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
If it's a custom compiler, it can't be normally distributed with the operating system on which the executable runs, so they have to provide it according to the above part of the GPL.
from the sgt.-byte-and-cpl.-processor dept.
I believe this was from Col. Panic's and Gen. Error's department.Perhaps I will someday. But I already have a stack of unread books and little time to read them.
Huh? Push it on the stack, and the next time you pop a book off the stack, you'll get it (unless you find some other book first). Methinks you're confusing your stacks and your queues.
You'll be stable all right... dead is stable ain't it?
Considering the fact that dead people decay into whatever dead people decay into a lot faster that live people decay into dead people, I'd say that the live person is the more stable form of the particle.
It's not a tempory name. That's it's offical IUPAC name.
No and yes. According to the article:
A committee will vote at this weekend's General Assembly of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in Ottawa, Canada. It is expected to approve the element's informal moniker, 'darmstadtium', and give it the chemical symbol Ds.
According to IUPAC's naming rules for elements 101 and up:
The systematic names and symbols for elements of atomic numbers greater than 103 are the only approved names and symbols for those elements until the approval of trivial names by IUPAC.
In other words, the systematic name is official until a trivial name is approved. This means that the systematic name, although official, is temporary. In the case of ununnilium, it may shortly be officially renamed to "darmstadtium", which would imply that the name "ununnilium" is temporary.
I hope I don't get moderated "-1, vicious pedantry" for this. B-)This page about ununnilium also explains how the temporary (or IUPAC systematic) name is generated from the number.
... which is pseudo-Latin for "one-one-zero-ium". It's just a temporary name consisting of the element's number and the ending "ium" to make it sound scientific.
Two votes instead of one may not be bad, but consider a corrupt official putting in 1000 votes for his favourite candidate.
The important part is not knowing who cast a specific vote. What we want to know is that every single vote was cast by someone who had the right to do so; i.e. nobody voted more than once.
One way to do this is to send everyone entitled to vote a randomly-generated private key, which they can then sign their vote with. The corresponding public keys can then be published together with the corresponding votes, which can then be verified. The keys must be hidden from whoever distributes them (e.g. using a sealed envelope) to prevent someone from forming a key-to-voter table. Getting the keys to the voters can be done using a similar process to that used currently for ballot authentication devices (stamps et.c.); i.e. transportation overseen by a sufficiently large amount of different people (which is currently considered sufficient to prevent tampering; most paper-based systems rely on this anyway).