BSD style license give freedom, but no security. GPL gives limited freedom, but great security. Wasn't it one of the founding fathers of the US who said "those who are willing to give up a liberty for security deserve neither"?
Yeah, it's a nice quote, but your use of it is fundamentally flawed. The author of a piece of code is not giving up any freedom by licensing it under the GPL. With the GPL the author retains all freedoms, and gains a measure of security in how that code is used. This is true of virtually all licenses as they generally specify the rights of the user, not the author, and almost never involve a transfer of copyright.
That quote doesn't apply to the users' situation either. Both the BSD and GPL licenses grant users additional rights over the rights they are guarenteed by law. By default users have no right to distribute. So the users are not giving up freedom because they did not have it in the first place.
Re:How much space do they use for caching?
on
Google's Bigger Index
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
30tb... at a buck a gig, those $30,000 sure do look appetizing to all the hard drive and raid makers.
I've heard that it's all kept in RAM. 30TB of RAM is going to cost a lot more than $30,000. If it is also on disk would they use cheap IDE disks or a server class solution?
At 1024 2.8GHz Xeons that renderfarm would be just behind the smaller of Weta Digital's renderfarms. Weta are at #44, and #48 on the November Top 500, with 1176 and 1080 2.8GHz Xeons.
Jobs went so far as to declare that Pixar had surpassed Disney as "the most powerful and trusted brand in animation."
seems a little fishy to me. While Pixar is amazing at what it does, it's no Disney. Nobody wants to take thier kids to Pixarland, and you don't get the Pixar channel at home, and I'd say it'll be quite a while before either of those happens. They are by no means trusted to the level of Disney in a family atmosphere.
Note he said "animation". Not TV, not amusement parks.
My wife and I had a conversation about this a few weeks ago. Our verdict was that Pixar has a better track record than Disney has recently. I would be willing to see a Pixar movie without knowing anything else about it. I can't say the same about Disney.
Ah, yes I see. I don't think just increasing the double click length will help though - it'll result in accidental double clicks when you do want to use the rename feature (I guess you could just always use the context menu for renames to avoid that).
What if I don't want mouse-over-select, single-click-open? I'm not willing to give up single-click-select, double-click-open as that is the way I've worked in every OS I've used. It's what I'm used to. I want single-click-select, double-click-open, rename via context menu.
It does get triggered too often in Windows, that's true. But the solution is to set the doubleclick speed for the mouse, something you can do in Win, Gnome and KDE. Don't know about the Mac, but I would assume so. So if a person is a little slower on the double click, just increase the time between clicks for what counts as a double click. That way if someone has a muscle problem that prevents quickly repeated actions, a double click will still work. The "rename" feature only gets called if the time between the two clicks is greater than the time set for the upper limit of a double click. Increast the time interval and you eliminate accidental renames.
You're wrong for Win2K and XP, at least. A single click on an already selected file will trigger a rename in those versions of Windows. This is particularly annoying as it means that if you've selected a file and then want to launch it you have to double click quite quickly. If you're too slow the first click will start a rename and the second click will move the cursor.
If you put your email address on a website, then you could argue that you are making it publically available. But if your address is not publically visible and is only available to spammers because they bought it from someone else or guessed it then they really have no implied agreement from you. A website is clearly intended for public consumption and so I really don't see why Google should have to ask permission (via opt-in) to use it. No one else does.
Google is opt-in. If you don't want to be indexed, don't be.
Ew... that's spammer talk. Google complies with robots.txt, but that's an opt-out signal. Those with no robots.txt are presumed to want to be listed. A true opt-in system would require an affirmative robots.txt before Google spiders a site... which isn't the reality.
True, it is opt-out. But there is nothing wrong with that. When you put up a publically accessible website you are already accepting that the public will use it. You have 'opted-in' by putting it up. Email and spam are different because the existance of an email address does not imply that you want to hear from the general public (including spammers).
Just take a look at key military technology in the '60s and '70s:
You are exaggerating the USSR's achievements, particularly in space exploration. There space program was riddled with systemic problems which resulted in numerous failures. In addition to the positive achievements you've listed, you've forgotten the negative ones:
First space mission training/preparation casulaty: Valentine Bondarenko, 1961.
First space mission casualty: Vladimir Komarov, Soyuz 1, 1967.
Worst ever rocket disaster: the Nedelin disaster at Baikonur, October 24, 1960. Over 100 people died.
Failed to replicate the US's manned moon program.
Your own list has more than a few inaccuracies:
First working long-term space stations: Russia (also used for spying)
This is simply incorrect. Mir went operational in 1986. Skylab was in use in 1973.
World's most powerfull rocket: Russia (Energija), implies that they could launch a BIG amount of plutonium for a BIG shot.
Energia did not fly until 1987. It was not equiped for the instant launch required for a nuclear exchange. It launched from Baikonur which would have been an early target. Basically it wasn't a weapon.
Most reliable rocket technology: Russia
You better back that up. From what I've read the USSR's rocket technology was not at all reliable, although it has become so over time. Take a look at the number of failures that occured during the USSR's moon program. Do some research on the N1 program: 4 failures from 4 launches, including the liftoff failure of #5L which destroyed the launch pad (pictures here. When the US put a man on the moon in 1969 the USSR haven't demonstrated that their 7K-L1 platform can take a cosmonaut around the moon and return him safely and haven't even successfully launched their main luna platform, the N1.
There was also a big fuss about that the USSR stole the space shuttle technology for their Buran shuttle. Actually, the Buran uses a more modern design, has a much higher capacity, better aerodynamics and even can fly completly on automatic (whereas the US shuttle must be landed per joystick).
Buran flew only once, in 1988. It was a technically superior vehicle to the Space Shuttle, but that is not suprising as it was designed later, with the lessons of the SS program in hand.
You said key military technology of the 60's and 70's and then listed a bunch of later achievements. In the 60's and 70's the USSR were clearly behind. At the time it was not obvious but it certainly is now.
Re:It's not "loose", fucker... it's LOSE
on
SCO Offline
·
· Score: 1
What's sad is that it was correctly spelt in the quote from the earlier post. It was right there in front of him and he still couldn't spell it right.
Sure, anyone can type google.com into their browser, but for the 90% of the population who don't understand how the web works, pressing the Search button on their browser is the only option. The fact that Microsoft's search is getting better doesn't change anything though, as search.msn.com is already the IE default, and those people will be using that.
If 90% of people just use the default then 90% of searches would be via msn now. But that's not the case. And of course enough people are aware of it for the term to be used as a verb.
And why should they be required to give you specs for their file system?
No one said they should be required to give out the specs for their file system. The question was "why don't we have write support?". The answer is "because Microsoft haven't released the specs".
I honestly do not undestand the apolegtic attitude for Peter Jackson expressed here on Slashdot.
I do not understand what is so difficult for you to comprehend. It seems obvious to me. Lots of us, even fans of the books, watched the movies and found that the changes did not significantly detract from our enjoyment of the story. So naturally when people claim that Jackson ruined everything and all the changes were unnecessary or worse we defend him.
Unfortunately, it appears to many that the changes Jackson did make worked against these goals, while at the same time he took a very short and sorrowful final parting and dragged it out for 15 minutes, thus destroying all its meaning and poignancy. Jackson's characters and visuals were great; his timing and pacing were sometimes good, sometimes terrible. And most often terrible where he departed from Tolkien's text.
The changes generally didn't work against those goals, that you think they did simply indicates that you are unwilling to accept any major change. Have a read of this person's views. Take some advice: stop merely looking at the differences between the books and the movies and watch the movies as if they were a different retelling of a favourite fairytale.
As it is I have heard people who haven't read the books complain that the movies are boring.
This is not due to the changes, it's due to how close to the book the movies are. A lot of these people also couldn't finish the books. For them the changes didn't go far enough. Of course had they gone further then even more fans of books would be complaining.
You think that JRR guy knew a little about epics? Having translated Beowulf for example?
I think that JRR guy knew next to nothing about making epic movies. How could he? For that matter I don't think you or I know that much about making epic movies either, otherwise we'd be writing and selling scripts instead of posting here. What I do know is that the box office and critical response to these movies indicates that it is a good adaption. That on the whole the changes have worked for both fans of the books and people who haven't read them at all.
15 minutes could have been cut out of those final scenes, leaving time for (a) the first confrontation with Saruman at the Tower of Orthanac (b) a final confrontation with Saruman in the Shire - wouldn't have to be the whole Scouring, but would establish that Merry and Pippin had indeed grown from their experiences; and then the final scene could have been cut down to 2 minutes, making it more believable and consistant with the book.
There is no way this would have worked. The Orthanac scene was 7-10 minutes by itself. The Scouring would require at least 30 minutes to have any sort of justice done to it. You'd have to introduce a bunch of new characters and then have a lot of action and the denoument. That might satisfy the fans of books but it would leave the rest of the audience scratching their heads.
There are three main reasons for the changes they made: pacing and tension, accessibility to non-fans, and dramatic development that works in the movies (rather than the book). If you don't understand why things had to be changed then you don't understand the different narrative demands of books and movies. I'm not saying everything they did was the best option, but frankly the end result was far better than any of us could have reasonably expected.
Yes it all seems a bit pointless. That guy was clearly not going to be happy unless Jackson resurrected Prof Tolkein and had him reading the book to us while we looked at Lee and Howe's paintings. I don't understand why he even watched movies.
If (when) SCO loses the case, the company is just going to fold.
IBM's countersuits are the kicker. McBride has admitted that SCO have nothing of value except the Unix IP. If IBM get high enough damages against SCO then SCO will be forced to sell the Unix IP or give it to IBM.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, definitely the most pretentious slashdot review I've ever seen.
That quote doesn't apply to the users' situation either. Both the BSD and GPL licenses grant users additional rights over the rights they are guarenteed by law. By default users have no right to distribute. So the users are not giving up freedom because they did not have it in the first place.
My wife and I had a conversation about this a few weeks ago. Our verdict was that Pixar has a better track record than Disney has recently. I would be willing to see a Pixar movie without knowing anything else about it. I can't say the same about Disney.
So it's useless in a dynamic environment. I think I'll stick with my cheap 4 megapixel consumer grade camera, thanks.
Ah, yes I see. I don't think just increasing the double click length will help though - it'll result in accidental double clicks when you do want to use the rename feature (I guess you could just always use the context menu for renames to avoid that).
What if I don't want mouse-over-select, single-click-open? I'm not willing to give up single-click-select, double-click-open as that is the way I've worked in every OS I've used. It's what I'm used to. I want single-click-select, double-click-open, rename via context menu.
If you put your email address on a website, then you could argue that you are making it publically available. But if your address is not publically visible and is only available to spammers because they bought it from someone else or guessed it then they really have no implied agreement from you. A website is clearly intended for public consumption and so I really don't see why Google should have to ask permission (via opt-in) to use it. No one else does.
- First space mission training/preparation casulaty: Valentine Bondarenko, 1961.
- First space mission casualty: Vladimir Komarov, Soyuz 1, 1967.
- Worst ever rocket disaster: the Nedelin disaster at Baikonur, October 24, 1960. Over 100 people died.
- Failed to replicate the US's manned moon program.
Your own list has more than a few inaccuracies: This is simply incorrect. Mir went operational in 1986. Skylab was in use in 1973. Energia did not fly until 1987. It was not equiped for the instant launch required for a nuclear exchange. It launched from Baikonur which would have been an early target. Basically it wasn't a weapon. You better back that up. From what I've read the USSR's rocket technology was not at all reliable, although it has become so over time. Take a look at the number of failures that occured during the USSR's moon program. Do some research on the N1 program: 4 failures from 4 launches, including the liftoff failure of #5L which destroyed the launch pad (pictures here. When the US put a man on the moon in 1969 the USSR haven't demonstrated that their 7K-L1 platform can take a cosmonaut around the moon and return him safely and haven't even successfully launched their main luna platform, the N1. Buran flew only once, in 1988. It was a technically superior vehicle to the Space Shuttle, but that is not suprising as it was designed later, with the lessons of the SS program in hand.You said key military technology of the 60's and 70's and then listed a bunch of later achievements. In the 60's and 70's the USSR were clearly behind. At the time it was not obvious but it certainly is now.
What's sad is that it was correctly spelt in the quote from the earlier post. It was right there in front of him and he still couldn't spell it right.
As it is I have heard people who haven't read the books complain that the movies are boring. This is not due to the changes, it's due to how close to the book the movies are. A lot of these people also couldn't finish the books. For them the changes didn't go far enough. Of course had they gone further then even more fans of books would be complaining.
I think that JRR guy knew next to nothing about making epic movies. How could he? For that matter I don't think you or I know that much about making epic movies either, otherwise we'd be writing and selling scripts instead of posting here. What I do know is that the box office and critical response to these movies indicates that it is a good adaption. That on the whole the changes have worked for both fans of the books and people who haven't read them at all.Yes it all seems a bit pointless. That guy was clearly not going to be happy unless Jackson resurrected Prof Tolkein and had him reading the book to us while we looked at Lee and Howe's paintings. I don't understand why he even watched movies.
It did make it quite hard to read. Kind of like listening to William Shatner only worse.