First, I was responding to the claim that different apps use clipboard functions inconsistently, not what formats can be transferred. Text pasting is not a problem.
I can paste cells from Gnumeric into KolourPaint (a KDE paint program), but not into GIMP or Sodipodi. I can create a text object in GIMP and paste the text in.
I have to ask you to give a specific example of pasting worksheet cells from a particular app to a particular graphics app. Did you copy symbolic data or an image? Why do you want to do this? Do you want an exact visual replica of how it looks in the spreadsheet app? There are GNU/Linux screen capture apps that work quite well for that purpose.
I think a more useful operation would be to copy and paste cells between spreadsheet apps. Between GNumeric and KSpread, pasting only happens as text. However, when I paste from KSpread to GNUmeric, GNUmeric asks what format to import, allowing proper cell pasting with a little tweaking. Have you experienced seamless pasting between spreadsheet apps on Windows or MacOS? I don't know, just because I haven't tried it.
Are you using incredibly archaic versions of Qt, Gtk+, and Mozilla, are are you just trolling? This problem has been largely solved for some time now. I can easily paste between GNOME, KDE, and Mozilla apps using either the "select, then middle-click" method or the "select, copy, then paste" method. Most apps I run into follow these guidelines for allowing both the traditional X11 behavior and Windows-style behavior at the same time without surprise or conflict.
I, for one, am glad that so many people have been so stupid and misled to value freedom and develop the various pieces of GNU/Linux that you're currently depending on. Did you ever consider that if the motivation of GNOME and KDE developers was simply to ditch Microsoft that they might have chosen to use MacOS or BeOS?
No, the genders aren't reversed, it's just an exceptional situation. There's nothing wrong with that. Actually, she's probably more atypical than you are, since literary men have never been uncommon.
I haven't studied the subject in detail, but I think there are probably both biological and social reasons that women are less common in the sciences and maths than men. It's the opposite situation in fields focused on caring for people, such as nursing. My attitude is that it's great for a woman to be a mathematician or a man to be a nurse, but that those people will probably always be somewhat exceptional.
I am agnostic - I do not believe that in the absense of any evidence in either direction that we can make statements about a deity or deities. Of course, many people try to spin scientific discovery (or lack thereof) to suit their own interpretation of the facts but the bottom line is that no one has ever proven or disproven the validity of any religion. To do so would really cheapen the whole thing, because it's not about fact but about faith.
You're absolutely right that no one has ever proven or disproven the validity of any religion. However, facts and faith are not mutually exclusive. I have faith in many things because of past experience or facts that have been taught to me. For instance, I have faith that things in the physical universe (such as gravity and mass) will continue to work the way I've experienced before or how others have observed them (and expressed in laws of physics). When I observe something that doesn't fit in my mental model, I don't throw out the laws, but try to find where my observation or interpretation was flawed.
Some people seem to need something to cling to, and there is always a religion around waiting to take advantage of and profit from that particular element of the human condition. In return the religion offers the sheeple a support network and a sense of well-being. Basically every organization exists to fulfill this purpose. The thing I find amusing about religion is that it asks you to accept something unprovable. In other words it operates on the irrational side of existence which makes it particularly attractive to those who are experiencing a life crisis.
However, every time someone engineers some system like this, there are people who are taken advantage of. And, of course, there is stratification. If the goal of Catholicism were as stated, to save souls and help people, then there wouldn't need to be a pope dressed up in gold and silk. You might still have a pope but he could be in an office building for all that matters. The most important realization to come to about religion is that it is not about spirituality when it is wrapped up in complex trappings. It's about control, and the people on top getting what they want. You don't need all that shit to make a statement about spirituality. I'm not sure what's so special about gold and jewels that they should adorn religious icons anyway; they're pretty but most precious metals have only specialty uses. Using them for corrosion protection seems a bit excessive and, well, arrogant.
I agree with that analysis for most religious organizations. However, please let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sturgeon said 90% of everything is crud", which applies to religions just like anything else.
Are you saying that it could never be valid for an organization to ask people to accept something unprovable? Do you think no one should accept anything as true unless it is an absolutely hard, provable fact? I don't think it's humanly possible to operate that way. Consider how much progress in science and technology has taken place based on Newtonian mechanics, which we now know to be false (or at least incomplete). Though F=MA was once thought to be an absolutely proven fact, it has since been disproven.
Even religions which do not amass wealth like the Catholic church are still about controlling people and making them behave in the way the founder(s) desire(d). Do you really need someone else to tell you how to connect with your spiritual self?
Though most religions are indeed about control (as are most large human organizations), a valid religion, IMHO, is one that has as its goal to connect people to God, and therefore with their spiritual selves. Christ
How about when totalitarian atheist regimes such as Stalin's USSR and Mao's PRC systematically suppress dissidents, indoctrinate children, and disappear millions of people? I don't think it's fair to blame those atrocities on atheism any more than it is fair to blame the various atrocities on religiousness in general. Perhaps if you blamed all these atrocities on belief in something absolute (such as existence or non-existence of deity), you'd have an argument. However, if you don't believe in any absolute truth at all, can you make a moral argument?
If you have cable internet service, ditch the regular phone line and get a VoIP service. This will save quite a bit and is less likely to garner the notice of the MPAA.
SIP plays well enough with NAT as long as the user agent is NAT-aware. I've used several software and hardware ones that work just fine through NAT with no special configuration of either router or client.
It's a bakery first. If you buy anything at Panera, buy the bread. If you hate bread, don't go there. I work at one and I take home baguettes almost every day. You'll have a hard time finding better. The sandwiches are good, but a little expensive.
It's an invented compound word from Latin (or possibly a Latin descendent, like Spanish) meaning simply "bread time" according to what they told us in "Planet Bread" training.
On the contrary, we get people who lounge for hours and hours. One of the things they emphasized in "Planet Bread" employee training was that we should make customers feel welcome for as long as they want.
Save yourself some money and buy bagels instead of sandwiches. They're $0.89 (here in NC) plus tax. You can even get meat, cheese and condiments on the bagel (if you know how to ask for it). It'll usually cost less than a sandwich. Or, just buy a baguette ($2.39). I often get a U Pick 2, but it's pretty affordable with my 65% employee discount.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you describing a Free or a non-Free (FSF terms; Open Source or non-Open Source in OSI terms) license? Any license that did not allow recipients of the code to modify it, use, and redistribute it for any purpose, commercial, or non-commercial, would not be either Open Source or Free Software.
How would you make the GPL more acceptable to businesses? It seems that a number of businesses prefer to release code under a Copyleft license rather than a BSDish license because it prevents others from using it to compete directly against them. I don't see why one of the GPL, the LGPL, or a "simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license" (FSF description of the new BSD license and old X11 license) can serve just about anyone's needs for a Free/Open Source license.
Copy code, slightly modify, provide for free. Not a term commercial software companies would agree with.
Perhaps you've never heard of IBM, Apple, or RedHat. More likely, you've confused the word "commercial" with "proprietary," especially since using "commercial" and "company in the same sentence is redundant.
I think that Linus is really trying to say that he really agrees more with the Free Software Foundation's GNU Philosophy more than the Open Source Initiative's, though he continues to use the term "Open Source." This is where some of the confusion comes from.
I think the OSI has effected great positive change in making business aware of the benefits of Free/Open Source software, but I think they were pretty arrogant and short-sighted to try to 'dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software"'. The idea that freedom is important for its own sake may be confrontational to a lot of businessmen, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I think a lot of conflict could be avoided if RMS would admit that business cases are important for Free Software and ESR would admit that freedom of Open Source software is important in its own right.
The article didn't say anything about automatic behavior and I sure hope it doesn't have any. Since it won't ever be more than a few hundred feet or yards from the soldiers operating it, I don't think any automation should be necessary.
This thing is not a robot, no matter what the article says. It's a remotely controlled vehicle. It's no more a robot than an RC car. It's a far less automated weapon than guided missiles that have been around for fifty years.
I have no idea what the "Redhat compiler" is, but if it's released under the GPL, no one can say what it can or can't be used for.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I was responding to the claim that different apps use clipboard functions inconsistently, not what formats can be transferred. Text pasting is not a problem.
I can paste cells from Gnumeric into KolourPaint (a KDE paint program), but not into GIMP or Sodipodi. I can create a text object in GIMP and paste the text in.
I have to ask you to give a specific example of pasting worksheet cells from a particular app to a particular graphics app. Did you copy symbolic data or an image? Why do you want to do this? Do you want an exact visual replica of how it looks in the spreadsheet app? There are GNU/Linux screen capture apps that work quite well for that purpose.
I think a more useful operation would be to copy and paste cells between spreadsheet apps. Between GNumeric and KSpread, pasting only happens as text. However, when I paste from KSpread to GNUmeric, GNUmeric asks what format to import, allowing proper cell pasting with a little tweaking. Have you experienced seamless pasting between spreadsheet apps on Windows or MacOS? I don't know, just because I haven't tried it.
Are you using incredibly archaic versions of Qt, Gtk+, and Mozilla, are are you just trolling? This problem has been largely solved for some time now. I can easily paste between GNOME, KDE, and Mozilla apps using either the "select, then middle-click" method or the "select, copy, then paste" method. Most apps I run into follow these guidelines for allowing both the traditional X11 behavior and Windows-style behavior at the same time without surprise or conflict.
I, for one, am glad that so many people have been so stupid and misled to value freedom and develop the various pieces of GNU/Linux that you're currently depending on. Did you ever consider that if the motivation of GNOME and KDE developers was simply to ditch Microsoft that they might have chosen to use MacOS or BeOS?
No, the genders aren't reversed, it's just an exceptional situation. There's nothing wrong with that. Actually, she's probably more atypical than you are, since literary men have never been uncommon.
I haven't studied the subject in detail, but I think there are probably both biological and social reasons that women are less common in the sciences and maths than men. It's the opposite situation in fields focused on caring for people, such as nursing. My attitude is that it's great for a woman to be a mathematician or a man to be a nurse, but that those people will probably always be somewhat exceptional.
You're absolutely right that no one has ever proven or disproven the validity of any religion. However, facts and faith are not mutually exclusive. I have faith in many things because of past experience or facts that have been taught to me. For instance, I have faith that things in the physical universe (such as gravity and mass) will continue to work the way I've experienced before or how others have observed them (and expressed in laws of physics). When I observe something that doesn't fit in my mental model, I don't throw out the laws, but try to find where my observation or interpretation was flawed.
I agree with that analysis for most religious organizations. However, please let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sturgeon said 90% of everything is crud", which applies to religions just like anything else.
Are you saying that it could never be valid for an organization to ask people to accept something unprovable? Do you think no one should accept anything as true unless it is an absolutely hard, provable fact? I don't think it's humanly possible to operate that way. Consider how much progress in science and technology has taken place based on Newtonian mechanics, which we now know to be false (or at least incomplete). Though F=MA was once thought to be an absolutely proven fact, it has since been disproven.
Though most religions are indeed about control (as are most large human organizations), a valid religion, IMHO, is one that has as its goal to connect people to God, and therefore with their spiritual selves. Christ
How about when totalitarian atheist regimes such as Stalin's USSR and Mao's PRC systematically suppress dissidents, indoctrinate children, and disappear millions of people? I don't think it's fair to blame those atrocities on atheism any more than it is fair to blame the various atrocities on religiousness in general. Perhaps if you blamed all these atrocities on belief in something absolute (such as existence or non-existence of deity), you'd have an argument. However, if you don't believe in any absolute truth at all, can you make a moral argument?
If you have cable internet service, ditch the regular phone line and get a VoIP service. This will save quite a bit and is less likely to garner the notice of the MPAA.
Minisip
M5T Safe
snom 190
Also, the newest firmware for the SPA-1001 seems to have some support for encryption, though it's not well documented yet.
SIP plays well enough with NAT as long as the user agent is NAT-aware. I've used several software and hardware ones that work just fine through NAT with no special configuration of either router or client.
It's completely false that VoIP using SIP can't be encrypted:
S/MIME Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
Requirement for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3711.txt
That sounds reasonable, since Skype usually uses iLBC, which has a nominal bitrate of 13.33 kbps.
I don't know how the sandwiches and soup used to be, but the Artisan bread is superior to the sourdough, IMO.
If that's how you feel about cinnamon raisin bread, try a cobblestone; it'll blow your mind.
It's a bakery first. If you buy anything at Panera, buy the bread. If you hate bread, don't go there. I work at one and I take home baguettes almost every day. You'll have a hard time finding better. The sandwiches are good, but a little expensive.
You didn't even buy with your discount?
That would be awesome. The customers could check on the status of the brewing coffee from their seats instead of bother me constantly.
It's an invented compound word from Latin (or possibly a Latin descendent, like Spanish) meaning simply "bread time" according to what they told us in "Planet Bread" training.
On the contrary, we get people who lounge for hours and hours. One of the things they emphasized in "Planet Bread" employee training was that we should make customers feel welcome for as long as they want.
Save yourself some money and buy bagels instead of sandwiches. They're $0.89 (here in NC) plus tax. You can even get meat, cheese and condiments on the bagel (if you know how to ask for it). It'll usually cost less than a sandwich. Or, just buy a baguette ($2.39). I often get a U Pick 2, but it's pretty affordable with my 65% employee discount.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you describing a Free or a non-Free (FSF terms; Open Source or non-Open Source in OSI terms) license? Any license that did not allow recipients of the code to modify it, use, and redistribute it for any purpose, commercial, or non-commercial, would not be either Open Source or Free Software.
How would you make the GPL more acceptable to businesses? It seems that a number of businesses prefer to release code under a Copyleft license rather than a BSDish license because it prevents others from using it to compete directly against them. I don't see why one of the GPL, the LGPL, or a "simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license" (FSF description of the new BSD license and old X11 license) can serve just about anyone's needs for a Free/Open Source license.
Copy code, slightly modify, provide for free. Not a term commercial software companies would agree with.
Perhaps you've never heard of IBM, Apple, or RedHat. More likely, you've confused the word "commercial" with "proprietary," especially since using "commercial" and "company in the same sentence is redundant.
I think that Linus is really trying to say that he really agrees more with the Free Software Foundation's GNU Philosophy more than the Open Source Initiative's, though he continues to use the term "Open Source." This is where some of the confusion comes from.
I think the OSI has effected great positive change in making business aware of the benefits of Free/Open Source software, but I think they were pretty arrogant and short-sighted to try to 'dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software"'. The idea that freedom is important for its own sake may be confrontational to a lot of businessmen, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I think a lot of conflict could be avoided if RMS would admit that business cases are important for Free Software and ESR would admit that freedom of Open Source software is important in its own right.
Mine's a 2003 model.
The two dollar bills are not infamous, just rare. I have gotten one from a customer while working as a cashier. I still have it.
The article didn't say anything about automatic behavior and I sure hope it doesn't have any. Since it won't ever be more than a few hundred feet or yards from the soldiers operating it, I don't think any automation should be necessary.
This thing is not a robot, no matter what the article says. It's a remotely controlled vehicle. It's no more a robot than an RC car. It's a far less automated weapon than guided missiles that have been around for fifty years.
I have no idea what the "Redhat compiler" is, but if it's released under the GPL, no one can say what it can or can't be used for.