And this is a *really good thing* for Linux, because there are excellent completely open source 3D drivers for Intel's integrated chipsets -- even the newest ones.
Right now, the performance doesn't even compare to what you get with a dedicated add-in card, but that gap will narrow, and hopefully soon the binary-only-graphics-drivers annoyance will go away.
Why does everyone want to sue microsoft for integrating product XXX into the OS, but nobody cares that Intel (and other companies) integrate sound, video, networking into their motherboards?
Because that was always a silly complaint against Microsoft that totally missed the real point. And I think most people knew that, but it seemed like the easiest thing to try and nail them on under existing antitrust law.
While surfing I also found this: Tyvek [dupont.com] which I'd never heard about, but apparently is quite thin and is used in hazardous biological environments.
Next time you're driving by a new house being built, take another look. It's (at least in the last decade) standard practice to put a barrier layer of Tyvek (or other-branded equivalent) between the siding and insulation.
Also, those hard-to-tear express-mail envelopes? Tyvek.
Exactly, if students get the impression that evolution is a fact not a theory then there is something more fundamentally wrong with the science curriculum than can be fixed with a sticker.
This gets into technicalities of epistemology -- how exactly do we know that anything is "true"? Can't everything be doubted -- from "I think, therefore I am" on up? I've got this theory about how the wall to this room would hurt if I were to try to walk through it, and there's some others about the earth going around the sun and things falling when I drop them.
These theories are well-enough established through long observation and common experience that we all consider it completely reasonable to treat them as fact -- and in fact, we consider anyone who thinks otherwise to be a bit off.
The basics (not necessarily the techical details) of evolution are on this order. They are, for all intents and purposes, facts.
Sure, children should be taught to question authority and to approach everything with a healthy degree of skepticism. And understanding of the scientific process -- and the philosophical process that gave rise to science -- should underpin all teaching about our understanding of the world. But the only reason to single out evolution as "theory not fact" in schools is the same one that gave the proponents of a non-earth-centric universe solar system such trouble: narrow-minded religion which has no interest in facts whatsoever.
I'll take a break from Linux and boot into WinXP Home (which I bought a $89 OEM license for). I'll buy a copy of Turbo Tax from Walmart for $30 bucks and submit my return online.
So, that's the $119 work-around.... How is that better than using TurboTax online under Linux and paying $20?
But it's not just fonts. I prefer 1280x960 to 1600x1200 on my 21" monitor because it's annoying to have to squint at images. Vector (or fractal) images are pretty scarce, and, flash excepted, basically non-existent on the web.
For example, the BBC has a great In Pictures section with excellent news photography from around the world -- all in 300x300. That's not very high resolution, which is unfortunate to begin with, but I'd really prefer it not to look like postage stamp.
And sure, you could somehow scale them up, but doing that in a way that looks halfway decent is really slow -- and that's still only halfway decent. Maybe if I had a 2560x1920, images could just be doubled -- but, unless you wanna buy me one....
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th
on
New and Improved SETI
·
· Score: 1
None other than Paul Allen. Yep, of Microsoft fame. Boo, hiss, where are the groups of objectors now?
No problem. We already resolved this internal conflict when Linus went to work for Transmeta.
"Microsoft Corporation's popular Windows desktop operating system product." What? Is there a minimum number of characters for a/. headline?
Look, not everybody instantly recognizes the names of every random computer program in existence. There's millions of 'em out there, and, especially for this one with its generic and not-very-descriptive name, it's good to provide some context. Sure, you might be a Microsoft Windows expert, but not everyone here is, y'know? How would you like it if there were a story about something called "Linux" without explaining what that was?
It is a symptom of a society where any level of dishonesty is legally acceptable, and is socially acceptable if it pays (hence the number of spammers with intact limbs).
Err, yeah, sorry about that -- free speech is a terrible, terrible thing. But don't worry -- we're workin' really hard at turning ourselves into an authoritarian fundamentalist/multinational state, so if you check back in a few years, I'm sure you'll be happy to find that lying [*] is totally illegal and everything is happy.
Not sure what we'll do about the lack of violent vigilante justice, but hey, I'm sure someone's working on it.
* as defined by MobilMicroCitiGeneralWalDisney and the 700 club. They know what's best.
Sounds like basically, what you're doing is creating an overlay -- a patchset, instead of a fork. That works too, but if you're doing a lot of it, adds a lot of complication.
RPM will suggest resolution to dependencies if you install the rpmdb package.
No, not that. RPM only has one (well, ignoring the post/pre script thing) concept of dependence: "requires". Dpkg allows you to say "It'd also be nice to have". Handy for programs that typically (or by default) work together, but aren't strictly requirements. This is part of why the base RH/Fedora "minimal" size has crept up over the years.
Yeah. Boost is really nice, but it's not a reason in and of itself to use C++. It's the kind of thing you might look for once you've already started your C++ project. Qt, on the other hand, is the kind of decision you might make very early on, right around the same time as "what language will this be in".
RPM still sucks though..deb handles a lot more stuff and works a lot better. The only reason distros use RPM is because RedHat uses it and RedHat is one of the biggest Linux distro makers, especially in the commercial marketplace.
Instead of "RPM blows", how about you give some specifics? In fact, both dpkg and rpm have their advantages. One particular nicety of RPM is that it's simple to include and track the source of _multiple_ source files and patches in one package. Debian's source-plus-one-patch approach is less convenient when you are, like Yellow Dog, basing your distribution on another one. With RPM, it's easy to add your changes to a package while keeping them easily distinct from any upstream changes.
On the other hand, dpkg's ability to have "suggests" dependencies would be kinda handy sometimes. But I can live without that -- while I really don't want to live without the first.
Y'know, I've been to Tim Hortons, and while you've got a nice country and all, that place sucks. The coffee is weak and flavorless (at least our Dunkin Donuts has powerful coffee, even if it's not very good), and, while you didn't mention it, the actual doughnuts were horrid little dry paste things. We can get better from little glass cases in truck stops.
Now, that's not to say you don't have good coffeeshops -- Bridgehead in Ottawa is worth twenty Starbuckses any day.
...to filter e-mail before it even gets to my mail server (as their filtering is in-line).
"In-line"? That doesn't really make any sense. Sounds like what you're doing is just sending all of your e-mail through someone else's server before it goes to your server. That might be an okay solution for some, but it's not like it's really anything special -- you can easily set that up yourself if you like using another server under your own control.
Sure, "burgle" happens to be the normal British word, and "burglarize" the normal American word. The American one happens to have been formed in the standard way, and the British in a humorous one. It doesn't surprise me if you can find examples of either word in either country. However, many Americans would still think of "burgle" as slightly silly -- with justification given its origin. On the other hand, the rampant disparagment in this thread of the completely standard formation of the American word is just unfounded snobbery.
Your Collins dictionary might simply not bother to list "burglarize", as many dictionaries don't list all possible standard constructions from every word.
As I said in an earlier message, OED cites both words as appearing at approximately the same time, both relatively recently (around 1870), and clearly marks "burgle" as "orig. colloq. or humorous".
My god, you're still arguing? Look, go find a copy of the OED, look in the front and find the contact information, and send all of your arguments to them and see if they'll agree to change what they say. Mention Occam's Razor to them too -- I'm sure they'll be very impressed.
I don't care if you say "burgle". That's clearly the common British word, even if it was originally a joke -- ironically pretty much the same joke as the Three Stooge's "murderize" (except in the other direction).
But it's silly to insist that the clearly-correct "burglarize" is somehow inferior. It's spelled in the American way because Americans started using it at about the same time Britons started using "burgle", which apparently became common enough quickly enough that "burglarise" never really got used.
As for how we "insist" on spelling things: well, that's what our varient of the language does. Surprise! Not everything is the same everywhere in the world! You sound somehow bitter about that.
And you can write "QED" all you like, but it still sounds pretty much like your first guess (probably something you'd never thought about) was wrong and yet instead of admitting that and learning something about the language, you have to keep arguing. (Insisting that "burgle" comes naturally from a word with no Ls in it? Claiming that the Oxford English Dictionary is an American publication?) Which is to be expected on Slashdot, but it's still kinda, I dunno, pick your preferred patronizing term.
How much do you want to bet that "burgle" has been around in usage a lot longer than "burglarize"?
How much money do you have that you want to lose? I'll bet that much -- it wouldn't be nice to bet more, since, as I thought I implied, I *did* look this up. OED2's first reference to "burglarize" is from 1871, and "burgle" the next year. Plus, "burgle" gets the note "of very recent appearance".
What's more, "burgle" is noted as "orig. colloq. or humorous" -- that is, it's likely the people who first said it realized that they were making a silly, non-standard construction for humorous effect. Like I said, I don't care if this later became acceptible normal language -- there's plenty of interesting ways for new words to be created.
Also, all of your "verbs are shorter" examples are irrelevant, by the way: those are simple cases where the noun is formed in the standard way from the verb. Going the other direction *also* works by adding a suffix ("ize", instead of "er/or"). Better examples (keeping with the criminal theme): "vandalize" is longer than "vandal", "brutalize" is longer than "brutal", and "terrorize" is longer than "terror".
Slashdot Mirror
There isn't a "meta-funny" moderation, so I'm just going to post this instead. Very clever.
If the goal is just scientific exploration, robots are 1000 times more cost-effective.
Not to mention slightly safer.
And this is a *really good thing* for Linux, because there are excellent completely open source 3D drivers for Intel's integrated chipsets -- even the newest ones.
Right now, the performance doesn't even compare to what you get with a dedicated add-in card, but that gap will narrow, and hopefully soon the binary-only-graphics-drivers annoyance will go away.
Why does everyone want to sue microsoft for integrating product XXX into the OS, but nobody cares that Intel (and other companies) integrate sound, video, networking into their motherboards?
Because that was always a silly complaint against Microsoft that totally missed the real point. And I think most people knew that, but it seemed like the easiest thing to try and nail them on under existing antitrust law.
Isn't it pretty common to have buttons that do one thing when clicked and do a different thing whe clicked and held down for a short duration?
And worse, you get interfaces like PageMaker, where some operations require triple and quad clicks.
While surfing I also found this: Tyvek [dupont.com] which I'd never heard about, but apparently is quite thin and is used in hazardous biological environments.
Next time you're driving by a new house being built, take another look. It's (at least in the last decade) standard practice to put a barrier layer of Tyvek (or other-branded equivalent) between the siding and insulation.
Also, those hard-to-tear express-mail envelopes? Tyvek.
Strangled by the stopped river of Irish government funding [...]
Maybe "drowned" by? But wait, the funding has stopped. Ooh, "dehydrated to death by"!
Exactly, if students get the impression that evolution is a fact not a theory then there is something more fundamentally wrong with the science curriculum than can be fixed with a sticker.
This gets into technicalities of epistemology -- how exactly do we know that anything is "true"? Can't everything be doubted -- from "I think, therefore I am" on up? I've got this theory about how the wall to this room would hurt if I were to try to walk through it, and there's some others about the earth going around the sun and things falling when I drop them.
These theories are well-enough established through long observation and common experience that we all consider it completely reasonable to treat them as fact -- and in fact, we consider anyone who thinks otherwise to be a bit off.
The basics (not necessarily the techical details) of evolution are on this order. They are, for all intents and purposes, facts.
Sure, children should be taught to question authority and to approach everything with a healthy degree of skepticism. And understanding of the scientific process -- and the philosophical process that gave rise to science -- should underpin all teaching about our understanding of the world. But the only reason to single out evolution as "theory not fact" in schools is the same one that gave the proponents of a non-earth-centric universe solar system such trouble: narrow-minded religion which has no interest in facts whatsoever.
So, basically, paranoia. I can respect that, but it's not one of the original poster's complaints.
I'll take a break from Linux and boot into WinXP Home (which I bought a $89 OEM license for). I'll buy a copy of Turbo Tax from Walmart for $30 bucks and submit my return online.
So, that's the $119 work-around.... How is that better than using TurboTax online under Linux and paying $20?
But it's not just fonts. I prefer 1280x960 to 1600x1200 on my 21" monitor because it's annoying to have to squint at images. Vector (or fractal) images are pretty scarce, and, flash excepted, basically non-existent on the web.
For example, the BBC has a great In Pictures section with excellent news photography from around the world -- all in 300x300. That's not very high resolution, which is unfortunate to begin with, but I'd really prefer it not to look like postage stamp.
And sure, you could somehow scale them up, but doing that in a way that looks halfway decent is really slow -- and that's still only halfway decent. Maybe if I had a 2560x1920, images could just be doubled -- but, unless you wanna buy me one....
None other than Paul Allen. Yep, of Microsoft fame. Boo, hiss, where are the groups of objectors now?
No problem. We already resolved this internal conflict when Linus went to work for Transmeta.
"Microsoft Corporation's popular Windows desktop operating system product."
What? Is there a minimum number of characters for a
Look, not everybody instantly recognizes the names of every random computer program in existence. There's millions of 'em out there, and, especially for this one with its generic and not-very-descriptive name, it's good to provide some context. Sure, you might be a Microsoft Windows expert, but not everyone here is, y'know? How would you like it if there were a story about something called "Linux" without explaining what that was?
It is a symptom of a society where any level of dishonesty is legally acceptable, and is socially acceptable if it pays (hence the number of spammers with intact limbs).
Err, yeah, sorry about that -- free speech is a terrible, terrible thing. But don't worry -- we're workin' really hard at turning ourselves into an authoritarian fundamentalist/multinational state, so if you check back in a few years, I'm sure you'll be happy to find that lying [*] is totally illegal and everything is happy.
Not sure what we'll do about the lack of violent vigilante justice, but hey, I'm sure someone's working on it.
* as defined by MobilMicroCitiGeneralWalDisney and the 700 club. They know what's best.
Sounds like basically, what you're doing is creating an overlay -- a patchset, instead of a fork. That works too, but if you're doing a lot of it, adds a lot of complication.
RPM will suggest resolution to dependencies if you install the rpmdb package.
No, not that. RPM only has one (well, ignoring the post/pre script thing) concept of dependence: "requires". Dpkg allows you to say "It'd also be nice to have". Handy for programs that typically (or by default) work together, but aren't strictly requirements. This is part of why the base RH/Fedora "minimal" size has crept up over the years.
Yeah. Boost is really nice, but it's not a reason in and of itself to use C++. It's the kind of thing you might look for once you've already started your C++ project. Qt, on the other hand, is the kind of decision you might make very early on, right around the same time as "what language will this be in".
RPM still sucks though. .deb handles a lot more stuff and works a lot better. The only reason distros use RPM is because RedHat uses it and RedHat is one of the biggest Linux distro makers, especially in the commercial marketplace.
Instead of "RPM blows", how about you give some specifics? In fact, both dpkg and rpm have their advantages. One particular nicety of RPM is that it's simple to include and track the source of _multiple_ source files and patches in one package. Debian's source-plus-one-patch approach is less convenient when you are, like Yellow Dog, basing your distribution on another one. With RPM, it's easy to add your changes to a package while keeping them easily distinct from any upstream changes.
On the other hand, dpkg's ability to have "suggests" dependencies would be kinda handy sometimes. But I can live without that -- while I really don't want to live without the first.
Y'know, I've been to Tim Hortons, and while you've got a nice country and all, that place sucks. The coffee is weak and flavorless (at least our Dunkin Donuts has powerful coffee, even if it's not very good), and, while you didn't mention it, the actual doughnuts were horrid little dry paste things. We can get better from little glass cases in truck stops.
Now, that's not to say you don't have good coffeeshops -- Bridgehead in Ottawa is worth twenty Starbuckses any day.
...to filter e-mail before it even gets to my mail server (as their filtering is in-line).
"In-line"? That doesn't really make any sense. Sounds like what you're doing is just sending all of your e-mail through someone else's server before it goes to your server. That might be an okay solution for some, but it's not like it's really anything special -- you can easily set that up yourself if you like using another server under your own control.
Then you are a sad excuse for a human as you hate something but you have no balls to stand up against it.
It's even more sad when you can't understand the distinction between "find annoying" and hate.
Sure, "burgle" happens to be the normal British word, and "burglarize" the normal American word. The American one happens to have been formed in the standard way, and the British in a humorous one. It doesn't surprise me if you can find examples of either word in either country. However, many Americans would still think of "burgle" as slightly silly -- with justification given its origin. On the other hand, the rampant disparagment in this thread of the completely standard formation of the American word is just unfounded snobbery.
Your Collins dictionary might simply not bother to list "burglarize", as many dictionaries don't list all possible standard constructions from every word.
As I said in an earlier message, OED cites both words as appearing at approximately the same time, both relatively recently (around 1870), and clearly marks "burgle" as "orig. colloq. or humorous".
My god, you're still arguing? Look, go find a copy of the OED, look in the front and find the contact information, and send all of your arguments to them and see if they'll agree to change what they say. Mention Occam's Razor to them too -- I'm sure they'll be very impressed.
I don't care if you say "burgle". That's clearly the common British word, even if it was originally a joke -- ironically pretty much the same joke as the Three Stooge's "murderize" (except in the other direction).
But it's silly to insist that the clearly-correct "burglarize" is somehow inferior. It's spelled in the American way because Americans started using it at about the same time Britons started using "burgle", which apparently became common enough quickly enough that "burglarise" never really got used.
As for how we "insist" on spelling things: well, that's what our varient of the language does. Surprise! Not everything is the same everywhere in the world! You sound somehow bitter about that.
And you can write "QED" all you like, but it still sounds pretty much like your first guess (probably something you'd never thought about) was wrong and yet instead of admitting that and learning something about the language, you have to keep arguing. (Insisting that "burgle" comes naturally from a word with no Ls in it? Claiming that the Oxford English Dictionary is an American publication?) Which is to be expected on Slashdot, but it's still kinda, I dunno, pick your preferred patronizing term.
How much do you want to bet that "burgle" has been around in usage a lot longer than "burglarize"?
How much money do you have that you want to lose? I'll bet that much -- it wouldn't be nice to bet more, since, as I thought I implied, I *did* look this up. OED2's first reference to "burglarize" is from 1871, and "burgle" the next year. Plus, "burgle" gets the note "of very recent appearance".
What's more, "burgle" is noted as "orig. colloq. or humorous" -- that is, it's likely the people who first said it realized that they were making a silly, non-standard construction for humorous effect. Like I said, I don't care if this later became acceptible normal language -- there's plenty of interesting ways for new words to be created.
Also, all of your "verbs are shorter" examples are irrelevant, by the way: those are simple cases where the noun is formed in the standard way from the verb. Going the other direction *also* works by adding a suffix ("ize", instead of "er/or"). Better examples (keeping with the criminal theme): "vandalize" is longer than "vandal", "brutalize" is longer than "brutal", and "terrorize" is longer than "terror".