I know that "long long" is common, but it's not part of the official C++ standard yet.
All UNIX implementations I've come across are implemented in C, not C++. Happily, the most current ISO specification for C is C99, where "long long" is defined.
Uhh, no. I went to a talk a few months ago by a planetary scientist where she talked about site selection. There was a LOT of argument about it. Mission parameters (direct-to-Mars crash landing mode) limited touchdown sites to somewhere around the equator, but there was still a lot of choice.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't talking about landing site selection but about the ability to move around once you've landed.
NASA spent a shedload of money developing vehicles that can navigate the Martian terrain. This will be needed for future missions I'm certain but I don't understand why they have implemented it this early. At this stage of the game, one region of Martian terrain will be just as interesting as any other region. Why bother scooting off to "that rock over there" when "the one right next me" is just as scientifically useful?
School shouldn't be about filling your head with facts, but about encouraging you to study things that you're interested in.
I second that. Ultimately, school is worthless if it doesn't teach people how to learn. The ability to educate one's self should be the greatest lesson of a compulsary education.
Uh...and you can play this on Linux? How? Did they finally come out with a Half-Life for Linux?
A regular version of Wine (not WineX or whatever) runs Halflife perfectly and has done for a couple
of years. The menus seem to be a bit flakey (I don't know for sure as I've never seen Halflife on Windows) but the game itself runs just fine.
The AmiZilla project seems to be dead, but the
last I heard the AWeb open source development crew
where planning on porting the Gecko engine, but they
were looking at KHTML too IIRC so I don't know what's going on at the moment
How would allowing the sale of biometric information or organs allow the wealthy to prey upon the poverty striken?
By permitting donations in exchange for wealth you're putting the less wealthy in a position where it's difficult for them to refuse. Moreover,
reliance on a poverty class for the supply of
organs is yet another reason for the maintenance
of the poverty class for the benefit of the bourgeois.
but it is MY liver/spleen/kidney/arm/hand/whatever... if I damned well want to sell it to the rich guy, totally of my own choosing, why shouldn't I be able to?
Quite frankly if a poor person thinks that their next meal, better shelter, etc. is worth more than their kideny, why not let them sell?
Would you advocate slavery if people could choose to become slaves? Extending your logic to
the extreme then it would seem that selling yourself into slavery is perfectly okay. After all, each individual is sovereign over himself so
you could argue that he is perfectly entitled
to sell his freedom?
I honestly don't know if I could say 'no' to that, if I needed the money badly enough.
Well it should be illegal to do so and for the same
reasons why it's illegal to buy and sell organs --
it allows the wealthy to prey upon the poverty striken.
Although, on the other hand, computer hardware has generally gotten much, much cheaper, so it seems entirely reasonable that the game should be cheaper in real terms.
Add to that the fact that the game isn't being changed at all from the original, according the article. Surely Taito have redeemed their R&D
costs by now.
That was why Tim Berners-Lee wanted URL to stand for ``Universal'' (not Uniform) Resource Locator.
Tim Berners-Lee originally wanted it to be called the `Uniform Document Indentifier'[1]. However the IETF thought it was `arrogant' to refer to it as `universal'; the web after all was insignificant at that time, June 1992.
`Document' was also changed to `Resource' at the same meeting and `Identifier' was changed to `Locator'. The latter, the IETF felt, emphasised the fact that resources can be moved about. Berners-Lee on the other hand, realised that `identifier' emphasised that URI's should be persistant. IMO, it is this third part of the appelation rather than `Universal' that suggests that a URI could be like an ISBN.
[1] Berners-Lee, "Weaving The Web", p66-67, Orion Business, 1999.
You're half right. It's true that UKers were never allowed to rip CDs, but it was never a crime and certainly not incarcerable. Previously, the copyright holder had to bring a civil case and the penalty would be nothing more than a fine, albeit a large one in all probability.
we in the uk have one vote every five years to elect the government who then rules without let or hinder for the next five years.
That's not really true. MPs from opposition parties and even from the party of Government can oppose a particular legislation. The former happens quite often but is not as effective in this particular Parliament because of New Labour's large majority; and the latter rarely happens because of the party whip but that isn't always present.
once elected, they are free to do what they like.
This is horribly misleading. There are all sorts of checks and balances limiting the actions of Government, not least of which is the opposition of non-Cabinet MPs and the House of Lords. It's true that the incumbent Government gets around these "obstacles" by ignoring Parliament altogether in some instances and peddling thinly veiled propoganda which oppositions MPs find difficult to refute, but that's a very different argument.
So the bottom line is that GNU, like Microsoft, takes credit for a lot of people's work, sometimes with their complete approval, sometimes against their will.
Against their will? Can you cite an example please. I can't think of one.
From what I've heard about Stallman (including that my mother knew him in the late 70s:)), he is not a good public speaker.
I think he's an
excellent public speaker. He's no Oscar Wilde, but so what? He presents his case consistantly and
clearly. What else does anyone want?
I think we all already know that, though - he's caused many an uproar on Slashdot by statements made that have infuriated even people that mostly agree with him.
What does this have to do with public speaking skills? It is possible to be a good public speaker
and to have people disagree with you.
It sounds to me as though you have an issue with his philosophy and are using his supposed weak oratary style to attack him. This is a strawman attack and not particularly endearing.
Sheesh, yet another slashdot poster who can't tell the difference between what I said and what he thought I said.
If you reread my post you'd see that I was simply making the point that accessing a "registry" isn't a feature of the shell and that the code for bash etc. wouldn't need to be altered.
Read down the article for details on how they can now do things like mount the registry as a drive and walk it like a filesystem. Yegads!
bash (or some sh-variant) would have to be adapted to know specific things about linux to compete at that feature level, but it would become non-portable.
This wouldn't be a feature of the shell on Linux so bash wouldn't need to be "adapted". I'm thinking/proc is a pretty close comparison to what you're talking about and that works just fine with vanilla shells.
If you allow corporations to just 'correct' the behavior afterwards, instead of making it wrong to begin with, it will never end, and the compensation will get smaller and smaller.
You are absolutely correct in your assesment. Thankyou for bringing the Mazda example to my attention.
Slashdot Mirror
All UNIX implementations I've come across are implemented in C, not C++. Happily, the most current ISO specification for C is C99, where "long long" is defined.
GCC?
You stated this without supporting evidence. I for one I'm fascinated with this line of thought. Do go on.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't talking about landing site selection but about the ability to move around once you've landed.
NASA spent a shedload of money developing vehicles that can navigate the Martian terrain. This will be needed for future missions I'm certain but I don't understand why they have implemented it this early. At this stage of the game, one region of Martian terrain will be just as interesting as any other region. Why bother scooting off to "that rock over there" when "the one right next me" is just as scientifically useful?
I second that. Ultimately, school is worthless if it doesn't teach people how to learn. The ability to educate one's self should be the greatest lesson of a compulsary education.
A regular version of Wine (not WineX or whatever) runs Halflife perfectly and has done for a couple of years. The menus seem to be a bit flakey (I don't know for sure as I've never seen Halflife on Windows) but the game itself runs just fine.
The AmiZilla project seems to be dead, but the last I heard the AWeb open source development crew where planning on porting the Gecko engine, but they were looking at KHTML too IIRC so I don't know what's going on at the moment
By permitting donations in exchange for wealth you're putting the less wealthy in a position where it's difficult for them to refuse. Moreover, reliance on a poverty class for the supply of organs is yet another reason for the maintenance of the poverty class for the benefit of the bourgeois.
Would you advocate slavery if people could choose to become slaves? Extending your logic to the extreme then it would seem that selling yourself into slavery is perfectly okay. After all, each individual is sovereign over himself so you could argue that he is perfectly entitled to sell his freedom?
Well it should be illegal to do so and for the same reasons why it's illegal to buy and sell organs -- it allows the wealthy to prey upon the poverty striken.
How many Amiga users does it take to change a light blub? None. They're convinced the light bulb is still working.
Add to that the fact that the game isn't being changed at all from the original, according the article. Surely Taito have redeemed their R&D costs by now.
Of Course
"Tim Berners-Lee originally wanted it to be called the `Uniform Document Indentifier'"
should be
"Tim Berners-Lee originally wanted it to be called the `Univeral Document Indentifier'"
Tim Berners-Lee originally wanted it to be called the `Uniform Document Indentifier'[1]. However the IETF thought it was `arrogant' to refer to it as `universal'; the web after all was insignificant at that time, June 1992.
`Document' was also changed to `Resource' at the same meeting and `Identifier' was changed to `Locator'. The latter, the IETF felt, emphasised the fact that resources can be moved about. Berners-Lee on the other hand, realised that `identifier' emphasised that URI's should be persistant. IMO, it is this third part of the appelation rather than `Universal' that suggests that a URI could be like an ISBN.
[1] Berners-Lee, "Weaving The Web", p66-67, Orion Business, 1999.
Hrmmph. Such an obviously computer-biased conclusion to what is indisputably one of the great achievement of human chess.
The fact, that Kasparov, running with a rather modest lump of brain tissue, drew Fritz, is an incredible feat.
Perhaps I missed it but I presume you had a point.
Simple. Oracle is the better product in all equations that matter.
You're half right. It's true that UKers were never allowed to rip CDs, but it was never a crime and certainly not incarcerable. Previously, the copyright holder had to bring a civil case and the penalty would be nothing more than a fine, albeit a large one in all probability.
That's not really true. MPs from opposition parties and even from the party of Government can oppose a particular legislation. The former happens quite often but is not as effective in this particular Parliament because of New Labour's large majority; and the latter rarely happens because of the party whip but that isn't always present.
This is horribly misleading. There are all sorts of checks and balances limiting the actions of Government, not least of which is the opposition of non-Cabinet MPs and the House of Lords. It's true that the incumbent Government gets around these "obstacles" by ignoring Parliament altogether in some instances and peddling thinly veiled propoganda which oppositions MPs find difficult to refute, but that's a very different argument.
Against their will? Can you cite an example please. I can't think of one.
I'm curious. Please cite a reference when Stallman has been rude.
I think he's an excellent public speaker. He's no Oscar Wilde, but so what? He presents his case consistantly and clearly. What else does anyone want?
What does this have to do with public speaking skills? It is possible to be a good public speaker and to have people disagree with you.
It sounds to me as though you have an issue with his philosophy and are using his supposed weak oratary style to attack him. This is a strawman attack and not particularly endearing.
They must have put it back then. Either that or I'm seeing things.
Sheesh, yet another slashdot poster who can't tell the difference between what I said and what he thought I said.
If you reread my post you'd see that I was simply making the point that accessing a "registry" isn't a feature of the shell and that the code for bash etc. wouldn't need to be altered.
This wouldn't be a feature of the shell on Linux so bash wouldn't need to be "adapted". I'm thinking
You are absolutely correct in your assesment. Thankyou for bringing the Mazda example to my attention.