And do what with that waste? It has to go somewhere. Are these breakdown products just going to go * poof * ?
Actually... you'd also rarely have to eat anything! All the waste products would be broken down into their constituent atoms, and reassembled as nutrients to be fed back to your cells. Recycle, man, recycle! Any element that wasn't useful to your body can probably be used to build more nanobots. But, yeah, you'd probably have to go to the bathroom at least once a month, and eat at least that often.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying NanoTech(tm) is only in the realm of fiction - These four problems (as well as countless others) are overcome every day inside our own body. But what I am saying is that I would be suprised to see useful nanotech inside.. mmm... 50 years? 100 years? I don't know. I always think of those oft quoted quotes when ever I try to give this sort of estimate (64K anyone?), but 50 years isn't too far out, I hope.
Hmmm... I think 50 years is too far out. As the post above notes: think about the world 50 years ago. Think about the ammount of progress made in the past 50 years... it's absolutely mind-blowing. Now, consider that not only is technological advance accelerating, but the acceleration is accelerating. The world 5 years from now is unimaginable, let alone 50 years! We've lost the ability to reasonably predict future trends, because they've come and gone before you can finish your sentence (figuratively speaking).
Um... I think you're thinking of Chris Carter? William Gibson is someone else entirely. As many others have pointed out, William Gibson is the guy who coined "cyberspace," and he writes good books. This reminds me of the time I saw Larry Niven at a Con... someone said: "I'm sorry, but I'm not sure who you are." And he replied "I'm Larry Niven. I write books." And that was enough.
I swear, the zero responsibility attitude of parents these days is dragging the world down into the bowels of hell itself. Would it be so bad if more people learned how to raise children effectively or were forced to give them up for adoption (or better yet, not have them at all)? This "pass the buck" mentality is driving.. me.. in.. sane..
OK, I'm only going to respond to this part, because I agree with all of it... I just wanted to add something. It just occured to me that the "zero responsibility" attitude, at least as it applies to internet censorship, comes from computer phobia on parent's parts. That is, the parents are too scared of the computer to monitor their children's access themselves. This may sound ridiculous to us, but I've worked in retail computer sales, and it's a very real phenomenon. People old enough to have children accessing the internet are, in general, scared to frikin' death of the computer. They don't want to touch it, they don't want to mess with it, nothing. The kids are 100% in charge of the computer. This is why these parents go and cry for external help in regulating it. Now, I'm not defending the regulation, nor am I defending these parents. Personally, this phenomenon makes me extremely angry. These people need to learn not to be scared of the computer. Then they need to learn to raise their own children. Of course, I'm not a parent yet, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about...
Uh... well, in a perfect world, this would be true. But have you ever tried looking at a Unix format ASCII file under Windows? Or, I think, the MacOS? Actually, I think there are differences between the MacOS and Windows, also. It's the whole CR/LF issue. Unix only uses one, Windows uses both CR and LF. I think the MacOS only uses one also, but I think it's the other one, not the one Unix uses, but don't quote me on that...
As the first comment sort of pointed out, yes, Yellow Dog Linux should run on these. It runs on current iMacs just fine. I don't know why one would believe it wouldn't... after all, USB keyboard and mouse support has been working for quite some time now. So, you're question is null, Yellow Dog Linux is an option.
GOSH DANG IT!!!!! Ooooh, you people make me angry! NOBODY SAID THEY WANTED TO TAKE SHELL SCRIPTING OUT OF LINUX AND MAKE IT JUST LIKE WINDOWS! NOBODY! NO MATTER WHAT, it will stilll have shell scripting, compilers, configuration files, etc. What people (including myself) suggest is that we remove the requirement that you know how to use these things. I imagine most software will still be distributed as source, we'll just write an installer that says./configure;make;make install, and throws a pretty graphical progress bar up as it compiles. But guess what! GCC will still be installed on the system and ready for your use! You don't have to use KDE/GNOME! You don't have to use my mythical installer mentioned above. But they SHOULD BE THERE, for those people who need help. Sorry for all the shouting, like I said, comments like the above make me really angry.
it runs all linux binaries (including civ and the like) after you add COMPAT_LINUX to your kernel and install the linux_base package.
Funny, I did that and it still didn't run everything reliably. What it did run was pretty amazing, but I'm disputing the word "everything" here.
it's not harder to configure than linux, it's _different_. it's not harder to customize than linux, it's _different_.
For me, maybe I'm weird, it was harder. Period. I'm not lying, I'm an honest guy. It really, truly was harder. Especially kernel configuration, even with a FreeBSD guru hanging over my shoulder.
i've never found it to be less reliable than linux, i'm not sure where you got that from.
As I said in my post... *I got that from USING it.* For weeks. When I said I tried FreeBSD, I didn't mean I installed it, booted it, and said "I'm a mindless Linux freak. I'm going to reboot now." I mean I tried it.
X works better for me on FreeBSD than it did on linux. KDE works better for me on FreeBSD than it did on linux. Emphasis added by me
That's great it works better for you, but that wasn't my experience. It was slower, and actually locked up and crashed several times. Granted, the whole system didn't crash. I could telnet in, kill X, and continue as if nothing had happened. But it shouldn't have crashed to begin with.
kde 1.1.2 and x 3.3.5 are in ports, and i can compile and install them with my eyes closed.
This is a recent addition. They were not there when last I tried FreeBSD (when 3.2 had been out for a short while).
you did not compile and/or install your new kernel correctly.
To be blunt, you are wrong. I did. I had the help of someone who only uses FreeBSD, who has since version 1.something. He didn't understand the problem. This was with version 3.1. Following the same procedure with 3.2 resulted in perfect success. So, musta been a bug they fixed. But speaking about the kernel, it's really tough to configure. I can do it, no problem, but it takes too long. Yes, I can tell you are the kind of person who believes vi is the only tool you ever need, and I can see that, I can do that, but it's a waste of my time.
FreeBSD 4.0 is in development with egcs 2.95.1, the developers #1 priority is to stability, not bleeding-edge software.
First, it isn't egcs anymore. As of version 2.95, it's the official gcc. And OK, fine, stability not bleeding-edge software. What about gcc 2.8? Come on! There are important compiler features not supported at all by the default FreeBSD!
You can install egcs 2.95.1 from ports and then edit/etc/make.conf and change CC =/path/to/egcs and (in my experience) it works fine.
Except, as I said, it isn't egcs. It's gcc. And what about pgcc? Maybe that's why FreeBSD was so much slower on my Celeron than Linux, because I've recompiled everything on my Linux box with pgcc? I have a suscpicion it was pgcc that broke the FreeBSD things, but it doesn't break anything under my install of Linux (SuSE 6.1). I put emphasis there, because other people may tell other tales.
so for all your real, actually experienced reasons, you're wrong.
Except... I'm not wrong. I experienced this stuff, you know. Are you saying I was delusioned? Perhaps I was hallucinating? Come on, how can I be wrong, when all I'm doing is recounting my experience? It happened to me, not to you, and I don't appreciate you passing judgement on it. What you're saying is that my opinion isn't valid. That's no way to communicate with someone. I was simply saying what my experience was, and why I made the choices I did. You have provided no evidence to the contrary... for me. You say it's not harder, it's different. Well, gee, I found it's differentness to be more difficult. And now I'll let you in on a little secret: I started out on FreeBSD. I used FreeBSD exclusively (I don't play games) for a year. Then I tried Linux. I liked it better. And if you tell me I don't have the right to choose what I like, then... well, it's not appropriate for a public forum.
Then I will respond to this version. I have tried, over and over, to run FreeBSD. Every time they release a new version, I give it another try. I will now reveal what I have learned, from empirical trial: it does *NOT* run all Linux binaries out of the box. It does run most, mind you. It is *MUCH* harder to configure, *MUCH* harder to customize, and generally (watch out!) less reliable, *in* *my* *empirical* *experience* than 2.2.x Linux. X doesn't work as well. KDE doesn't work as well... 1.1.1 wouldn't even compile under 3.2, or at least I couldn't compile it. Neither would X 3.3.5. When I tried version 3.1, it would not boot my machine with anything other than the preincluded generic kernel. I built a new kernel using the GENERIC config file, and it wouldn't boot! That's completely illogical. FreeBSD (at least as of 3.2) still includes gcc 2.7.something, and trying to upgrade to 2.95.1 broke lots and lots of stuff. So, for all these real, actually experienced reasons, I'm sticking with Linux.
That's correct, KDE 1.1.2 will *not* build with QT2. It still requires QT1.44. The QT2 based version of KDE is KDE2, which isn't out yet... but it looks like the coolest thing since sliced bread, to use a shockingly non-technical cliche.
At this point they are even out of the beta stages. There is no way Windows 2000 won?t ship by the end of the year.
And now, as any follower of Ifni (or the laws of Murphy) knows, because you've said this, Windows 2000 won't be coming out until Jan 2000 at the earliest:)
>they look like they came straight out of an Anime movie
> Yeah, well, the tentacles (optional, incld. with dvd) are a pain in the ass.
Dufus. Not all anime is tentacle porn. In fact, tentacles are a definite minority... actually, porn is a definite minority. but anyway, just to stay on topic, I agree that the Apple cases look like they're from some kind of sci-fi movie, but that just makes them cooler, right? Not less cool, not suck, but rule!
Well, what you *should* do is give the other movies a chance. The fact that it doesn't appeal to you doesn't suprise me if you've only seen the first movie. That's like reading the first (well, fourth in this case) chapter of a book and deciding the rest must suck too. The first movie is not the best. Most people consider the second (5th?) movie to be the best. I reccommend you watch it, then make a decision as to whether or not you want to see any more. Of course, if you just hate science fiction in general, never mind.
Yes, and what I've heard is that Mac OS X is, in fact, 99.9% POSIX compliant. Apple made the decision not to spend the money on certification because it would have raised cost to the customers on dubious justification.
Oh yea, and EVERYONE has a top-of-the-line G3?
on
Q3T on Mac First
·
· Score: 1
You're right, but not only does it go against the propaganda, it goes against the facts (which are not as rosy as Steve Jobs says, either). The PowerPC chip is a true RISC chip, and for certain applications, it will absolutely destroy ANY Pentium or variant. The 400MHz G3 RIPS through RC5, for instance. It all depends on the application, but in general, a G3 will beat a PII MHz for MHz. Now, I don't know about a PIII with programs written to take advantage of the new instructions. That changes the playing field a lot. The PIII probably comes into parity with the G3, which is why it would be accurate to say that a 500MHz PIII beats a 400MHz G3. But of course, the G4 comes out soon, which should reverse the tables again...
Watch out for that inverse error (or whichever logical fallacy this is). Just because it happened in a movie doesn't mean it can't happen in real life too. Of COURSE, it's not any more or less likely to happen because they made a movie about it than if they hadn't!
But I don't use Debian, so why should I be told I should even think about calling it GNU/Linux? The OS (as a whole) is made by the distributor, and they can call it what they please. I use SuSE Linux 6.0, and that's what I call it, because that's its name! If the good folks at SuSE had decided to call it GNU/Linux, then so would I. For that matter, were I to switch to Debian, I would also switch to saying GNU/Linux, at least when referring to my own system.
No offense intended, but I think you missed the point. This was very good writing. But it was very deep, just like most of Katz' writing. I think a large reason these authors get bashed here is due to the overly technical worldview of many/. readers (well, posters, anyway). I suppose, from the point of view of a technical person whose favorite books are manuals or O'Reilley books, writing such as this would seem to be all you described. He talks about (in fact, it's his whole point) things that don't exist in the "real world." I think it's a very insightful article, and it's equally insightful to note the difference when people are incapable of manipulating his symbols. When people have different worldviews, their symbolic terms are different, they clash, and you get people who like to flame and insult good authors.
It should be noted that I am a Computer Science major, and a very technical person. But I purposely try to broaden my mental horizons, and I find it's a very rewarding experience.
Hmm... I know someone with that exact card who used 2.2.2 with no problems. Actually... I'm not sure if he ever used 2.2.2, but I know he used 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 without difficulty.
All this nationalist crud on everyone's part is really driving me insane. I hereby declare myself dictator of the world. My first official act is to dissolve all national boundaries. To facilitate communication among my new citizens, I proclaim Klingon to be the world language. Anyone caught discriminating against another human based on any criteria other than merit will be shot. Anyone who cannot pass a standardized test that I will create will be sterilized. Teachers/Professors/other educators will receive more goods and services than all other professions. My Lieutenants will be selected purely on the criteria of merit. They will distribute goods and services based on an individual's contribution to society, but all citizens will be cared for. I command that research begin on farming the Moon and Mars to provide for all citizens, as the Earth can no longer sustain us all. People who dislike my policies will be sent to mine the asteroid belt for valuable materials.
I thought we were done with this nonsense! KDE is fine, just fine! GNOME is fine, just fine! I prefer KDE, not because I'm a capatalist pig opposed to the GPL, but because right now it's simply a better product! A lot of things GNOME does it does wrong. The whole anti-aliasing thing, while a neat hack, is the wrong way to do it. I don't have a better suggestion (actually, I do: re-write X), but that's the way it is. KDE is open source, QT has an open source license now. RMS is probably just trying to cover his butt by complaining about it. He thinks ANY license other than the GPL (including the LGPL) is inconvenient and bad. That, I can't agree with. He's just being an egotistical maniac. I mean, I'm as Communist as the next guy, but really! Insisting on a license just because you created that license is just plain megalomania. I have read the QT license, it seemed perfectly suitable to me (not that I'm an expert). I'm rambling now, so I'll stop.
I don't see that the FCC ruling has any effect on my tuition... My school has something on the order of two T3's to Sprintlink, with three T1's on MCI, and another totally seperate connection to the Internet2. No phone calls involved!
That's not to say they won't raise tuition, just that it won't have anything to do with this...
Slashdot Mirror
And do what with that waste? It has to go somewhere. Are these breakdown products just going to go * poof * ?
Actually... you'd also rarely have to eat anything! All the waste products would be broken down into their constituent atoms, and reassembled as nutrients to be fed back to your cells. Recycle, man, recycle! Any element that wasn't useful to your body can probably be used to build more nanobots. But, yeah, you'd probably have to go to the bathroom at least once a month, and eat at least that often.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying NanoTech(tm) is only in the realm of fiction - These four problems (as well as countless others) are overcome every day inside our own body. But what I am saying is that I would be suprised to see useful nanotech inside.. mmm... 50 years? 100 years? I don't know. I always think of those oft quoted quotes when ever I try to give this sort of estimate (64K anyone?), but 50 years isn't too far out, I hope.
Hmmm... I think 50 years is too far out. As the post above notes: think about the world 50 years ago. Think about the ammount of progress made in the past 50 years... it's absolutely mind-blowing. Now, consider that not only is technological advance accelerating, but the acceleration is accelerating. The world 5 years from now is unimaginable, let alone 50 years! We've lost the ability to reasonably predict future trends, because they've come and gone before you can finish your sentence (figuratively speaking).
Um... I think you're thinking of Chris Carter? William Gibson is someone else entirely. As many others have pointed out, William Gibson is the guy who coined "cyberspace," and he writes good books. This reminds me of the time I saw Larry Niven at a Con... someone said: "I'm sorry, but I'm not sure who you are." And he replied "I'm Larry Niven. I write books." And that was enough.
I swear, the zero responsibility attitude of parents these days is dragging the world down into the bowels of hell itself. Would it be so bad if more people learned how to raise children effectively or were forced to give them up for adoption (or better yet, not have them at all)? This "pass the buck" mentality is driving.. me.. in.. sane..
OK, I'm only going to respond to this part, because I agree with all of it... I just wanted to add something. It just occured to me that the "zero responsibility" attitude, at least as it applies to internet censorship, comes from computer phobia on parent's parts. That is, the parents are too scared of the computer to monitor their children's access themselves. This may sound ridiculous to us, but I've worked in retail computer sales, and it's a very real phenomenon. People old enough to have children accessing the internet are, in general, scared to frikin' death of the computer. They don't want to touch it, they don't want to mess with it, nothing. The kids are 100% in charge of the computer. This is why these parents go and cry for external help in regulating it. Now, I'm not defending the regulation, nor am I defending these parents. Personally, this phenomenon makes me extremely angry. These people need to learn not to be scared of the computer. Then they need to learn to raise their own children. Of course, I'm not a parent yet, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about...
Uh... well, in a perfect world, this would be true. But have you ever tried looking at a Unix format ASCII file under Windows? Or, I think, the MacOS? Actually, I think there are differences between the MacOS and Windows, also. It's the whole CR/LF issue. Unix only uses one, Windows uses both CR and LF. I think the MacOS only uses one also, but I think it's the other one, not the one Unix uses, but don't quote me on that...
As the first comment sort of pointed out, yes, Yellow Dog Linux should run on these. It runs on current iMacs just fine. I don't know why one would believe it wouldn't... after all, USB keyboard and mouse support has been working for quite some time now. So, you're question is null, Yellow Dog Linux is an option.
GOSH DANG IT!!!!! Ooooh, you people make me angry! NOBODY SAID THEY WANTED TO TAKE SHELL SCRIPTING OUT OF LINUX AND MAKE IT JUST LIKE WINDOWS! NOBODY! NO MATTER WHAT, it will stilll have shell scripting, compilers, configuration files, etc. What people (including myself) suggest is that we remove the requirement that you know how to use these things. I imagine most software will still be distributed as source, we'll just write an installer that says ./configure;make;make install, and throws a pretty graphical progress bar up as it compiles. But guess what! GCC will still be installed on the system and ready for your use! You don't have to use KDE/GNOME! You don't have to use my mythical installer mentioned above. But they SHOULD BE THERE, for those people who need help. Sorry for all the shouting, like I said, comments like the above make me really angry.
it runs all linux binaries (including civ and the like) after you add COMPAT_LINUX to your kernel and install the linux_base package.
/etc/make.conf and change CC = /path/to/egcs and (in my experience) it works fine.
Funny, I did that and it still didn't run everything reliably. What it did run was pretty amazing, but I'm disputing the word "everything" here.
it's not harder to configure than linux, it's _different_. it's not harder to customize than linux, it's _different_.
For me, maybe I'm weird, it was harder. Period. I'm not lying, I'm an honest guy. It really, truly was harder. Especially kernel configuration, even with a FreeBSD guru hanging over my shoulder.
i've never found it to be less reliable than linux, i'm not sure where you got that from.
As I said in my post... *I got that from USING it.* For weeks. When I said I tried FreeBSD, I didn't mean I installed it, booted it, and said "I'm a mindless Linux freak. I'm going to reboot now." I mean I tried it.
X works better for me on FreeBSD than it did on linux. KDE works better for me on FreeBSD than it did on linux.
Emphasis added by me
That's great it works better for you, but that wasn't my experience. It was slower, and actually locked up and crashed several times. Granted, the whole system didn't crash. I could telnet in, kill X, and continue as if nothing had happened. But it shouldn't have crashed to begin with.
kde 1.1.2 and x 3.3.5 are in ports, and i can compile and install them with my eyes closed.
This is a recent addition. They were not there when last I tried FreeBSD (when 3.2 had been out for a short while).
you did not compile and/or install your new kernel correctly.
To be blunt, you are wrong. I did. I had the help of someone who only uses FreeBSD, who has since version 1.something. He didn't understand the problem. This was with version 3.1. Following the same procedure with 3.2 resulted in perfect success. So, musta been a bug they fixed. But speaking about the kernel, it's really tough to configure. I can do it, no problem, but it takes too long. Yes, I can tell you are the kind of person who believes vi is the only tool you ever need, and I can see that, I can do that, but it's a waste of my time.
FreeBSD 4.0 is in development with egcs 2.95.1, the developers #1 priority is to stability, not bleeding-edge software.
First, it isn't egcs anymore. As of version 2.95, it's the official gcc. And OK, fine, stability not bleeding-edge software. What about gcc 2.8? Come on! There are important compiler features not supported at all by the default FreeBSD!
You can install egcs 2.95.1 from ports and then edit
Except, as I said, it isn't egcs. It's gcc. And what about pgcc? Maybe that's why FreeBSD was so much slower on my Celeron than Linux, because I've recompiled everything on my Linux box with pgcc? I have a suscpicion it was pgcc that broke the FreeBSD things, but it doesn't break anything under my install of Linux (SuSE 6.1). I put emphasis there, because other people may tell other tales.
so for all your real, actually experienced reasons, you're wrong.
Except... I'm not wrong. I experienced this stuff, you know. Are you saying I was delusioned? Perhaps I was hallucinating? Come on, how can I be wrong, when all I'm doing is recounting my experience? It happened to me, not to you, and I don't appreciate you passing judgement on it. What you're saying is that my opinion isn't valid. That's no way to communicate with someone. I was simply saying what my experience was, and why I made the choices I did. You have provided no evidence to the contrary... for me. You say it's not harder, it's different. Well, gee, I found it's differentness to be more difficult. And now I'll let you in on a little secret: I started out on FreeBSD. I used FreeBSD exclusively (I don't play games) for a year. Then I tried Linux. I liked it better. And if you tell me I don't have the right to choose what I like, then... well, it's not appropriate for a public forum.
Thanks,
Robert Thompson
Then I will respond to this version. I have tried, over and over, to run FreeBSD. Every time they release a new version, I give it another try. I will now reveal what I have learned, from empirical trial: it does *NOT* run all Linux binaries out of the box. It does run most, mind you. It is *MUCH* harder to configure, *MUCH* harder to customize, and generally (watch out!) less reliable, *in* *my* *empirical* *experience* than 2.2.x Linux. X doesn't work as well. KDE doesn't work as well... 1.1.1 wouldn't even compile under 3.2, or at least I couldn't compile it. Neither would X 3.3.5. When I tried version 3.1, it would not boot my machine with anything other than the preincluded generic kernel. I built a new kernel using the GENERIC config file, and it wouldn't boot! That's completely illogical. FreeBSD (at least as of 3.2) still includes gcc 2.7.something, and trying to upgrade to 2.95.1 broke lots and lots of stuff. So, for all these real, actually experienced reasons, I'm sticking with Linux.
That's correct, KDE 1.1.2 will *not* build with QT2. It still requires QT1.44. The QT2 based version of KDE is KDE2, which isn't out yet... but it looks like the coolest thing since sliced bread, to use a shockingly non-technical cliche.
Actually, I'm using Linux... I was just quoting the previous poster verbatim.
At this point they are even out of the beta stages. There is no way Windows 2000 won?t ship by the end of the year.
:)
And now, as any follower of Ifni (or the laws of Murphy) knows, because you've said this, Windows 2000 won't be coming out until Jan 2000 at the earliest
>they look like they came straight out of an Anime movie
> Yeah, well, the tentacles (optional, incld. with dvd) are a pain in the ass.
Dufus. Not all anime is tentacle porn. In fact, tentacles are a definite minority... actually, porn is a definite minority. but anyway, just to stay on topic, I agree that the Apple cases look like they're from some kind of sci-fi movie, but that just makes them cooler, right? Not less cool, not suck, but rule!
Well, what you *should* do is give the other movies a chance. The fact that it doesn't appeal to you doesn't suprise me if you've only seen the first movie. That's like reading the first (well, fourth in this case) chapter of a book and deciding the rest must suck too. The first movie is not the best. Most people consider the second (5th?) movie to be the best. I reccommend you watch it, then make a decision as to whether or not you want to see any more. Of course, if you just hate science fiction in general, never mind.
Yes, and what I've heard is that Mac OS X is, in fact, 99.9% POSIX compliant. Apple made the decision not to spend the money on certification because it would have raised cost to the customers on dubious justification.
You're right, but not only does it go against the propaganda, it goes against the facts (which are not as rosy as Steve Jobs says, either). The PowerPC chip is a true RISC chip, and for certain applications, it will absolutely destroy ANY Pentium or variant. The 400MHz G3 RIPS through RC5, for instance. It all depends on the application, but in general, a G3 will beat a PII MHz for MHz. Now, I don't know about a PIII with programs written to take advantage of the new instructions. That changes the playing field a lot. The PIII probably comes into parity with the G3, which is why it would be accurate to say that a 500MHz PIII beats a 400MHz G3. But of course, the G4 comes out soon, which should reverse the tables again...
Watch out for that inverse error (or whichever logical fallacy this is). Just because it happened in a movie doesn't mean it can't happen in real life too. Of COURSE, it's not any more or less likely to happen because they made a movie about it than if they hadn't!
But I don't use Debian, so why should I be told I should even think about calling it GNU/Linux? The OS (as a whole) is made by the distributor, and they can call it what they please. I use SuSE Linux 6.0, and that's what I call it, because that's its name! If the good folks at SuSE had decided to call it GNU/Linux, then so would I. For that matter, were I to switch to Debian, I would also switch to saying GNU/Linux, at least when referring to my own system.
No offense intended, but I think you missed the point. This was very good writing. But it was very deep, just like most of Katz' writing. I think a large reason these authors get bashed here is due to the overly technical worldview of many /. readers (well, posters, anyway). I suppose, from the point of view of a technical person whose favorite books are manuals or O'Reilley books, writing such as this would seem to be all you described. He talks about (in fact, it's his whole point) things that don't exist in the "real world." I think it's a very insightful article, and it's equally insightful to note the difference when people are incapable of manipulating his symbols. When people have different worldviews, their symbolic terms are different, they clash, and you get people who like to flame and insult good authors.
It should be noted that I am a Computer Science major, and a very technical person. But I purposely try to broaden my mental horizons, and I find it's a very rewarding experience.
Hmm... I know someone with that exact card who used 2.2.2 with no problems. Actually... I'm not sure if he ever used 2.2.2, but I know he used 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 without difficulty.
Well, being that it's a German company, that's where the sooseh (rhymes with Sousa) comes from, since that's how you would pronounce "Suse" in German.
All this nationalist crud on everyone's part is really driving me insane. I hereby declare myself dictator of the world. My first official act is to dissolve all national boundaries. To facilitate communication among my new citizens, I proclaim Klingon to be the world language. Anyone caught discriminating against another human based on any criteria other than merit will be shot. Anyone who cannot pass a standardized test that I will create will be sterilized. Teachers/Professors/other educators will receive more goods and services than all other professions. My Lieutenants will be selected purely on the criteria of merit. They will distribute goods and services based on an individual's contribution to society, but all citizens will be cared for. I command that research begin on farming the Moon and Mars to provide for all citizens, as the Earth can no longer sustain us all. People who dislike my policies will be sent to mine the asteroid belt for valuable materials.
I thought we were done with this nonsense! KDE is fine, just fine! GNOME is fine, just fine! I prefer KDE, not because I'm a capatalist pig opposed to the GPL, but because right now it's simply a better product! A lot of things GNOME does it does wrong. The whole anti-aliasing thing, while a neat hack, is the wrong way to do it. I don't have a better suggestion (actually, I do: re-write X), but that's the way it is. KDE is open source, QT has an open source license now. RMS is probably just trying to cover his butt by complaining about it. He thinks ANY license other than the GPL (including the LGPL) is inconvenient and bad. That, I can't agree with. He's just being an egotistical maniac. I mean, I'm as Communist as the next guy, but really! Insisting on a license just because you created that license is just plain megalomania. I have read the QT license, it seemed perfectly suitable to me (not that I'm an expert). I'm rambling now, so I'll stop.
I don't see that the FCC ruling has any effect on my tuition... My school has something on the order of two T3's to Sprintlink, with three T1's on MCI, and another totally seperate connection to the Internet2. No phone calls involved!
That's not to say they won't raise tuition, just that it won't have anything to do with this...
I don't see the point. Does anyone have any intelligent opinions as to why this decision was made? Is the only possible conclusion that of bribery?
Makes me glad I live on campus... Ah... ethernet...