The easiest way is to get the flashblock extension and some flash plugin, and never click on a flash thing. There's also some way to make a plugin registered for flash that does nothing.
It's fine to paint F/OSS advocates as amateurs. Most of them are, in fact, amateurs. Doesn't mean they're not going to turn out to be right, just that they don't get paid for it. The reason he's stupid is that he painted the world's largest and most careful computer company as a bunch of amateurs. If IBM thinks it's going to win a lawsuit, and you don't have a damn good reason to think otherwise, and you're not who they'd be bluffing, bet on them.
The OSS community is an important force these days, but it wasn't strictly relevant to the issue at hand, and the open legal community only became significant due to this case. It was a lawsuit by SCO against IBM, and only SCO and IBM had access to the contracts that affected it, and most of us aren't lawyers.
SCO (as Caldera) beating Microsoft isn't a good excuse, because everybody beats Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't bother to try in lawsuits; they drive people who sue them out of business or settle for a trivial (for Microsoft) amount of money, or simply ignore judgments. IBM plays differently, and doesn't lose the court cases.
Did you look at the second link? It's a link to Senate records, which show unambiguous facts: the stated purpose of the bill was "To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States", all of the democrats (but only one of the independants who caucused with them), and 5 republicans, including the ranking republican member of the judiciary committee voted, in favor of it, but a 3/5 majority was required for this motion.
For that matter, there are equal numbers of democrats and republicans in the senate right now; there are two independants who caucused with the democrats to give them majority status. But as far as people belonging to the party, the democrats don't have a majority in the senate, let alone the 3/5 majority needed.
Of course, the amendment could still survive a filibuster and be passed.
Ah, yes. I spaced out in the middle of that paragraph and thought you were counting that in things you blamed on OEMs (the problem with reading slashdot while drinking your morning coffee...). The real issue with plugging and unplugging is how much strain the connector puts on the solder joint and the circuit board and the circuit board's mounting when you use it, and therefore how many cycles it can go through before something breaks off, especially when the device doesn't have room for a lot of physical support. How often the user fails to use it on the first try is somewhat less of a concern, although it's best if people always succeed on the second try, and don't keep pushing on the thing.
I expect they'll make it 100% interactive in the duel mode. The fundamental issue is that players tend to rely on their characters to sword-fight competently, and wouldn't bother to learn to fence to play Red Steel. On the other hand, for a special light saber duel, it's reasonable for it to be up to the player to know how to fence.
On the other hand, the Wii doesn't have a very good idea of exactly where you're pointing the wiimote when you're not pointing it at the screen, so it may have to assume that you're parrying appropriately, but that should be relatively minor.
Actually, the mini-USB connector is standard, and they made it to replace all of the proprietary ones. The proprietary ones were used because the regular square connector was too big to use on portable devices. People weren't going to be happy with a digital camera where the space in the device devoted to optics was smaller than the space devoted to the USB jack. On new devices these days, you pretty much only see the little flat connector on things you're expected to unplug and the big square one on things you aren't expected to unplug, and the important difference is how tightly they hold.
The argument that the blog post was making was that, because Con stopped working on the kernel, and Ingo Molnar's scheduler got merged instead, this means that the desktop is being ignored. In fact, Con's work demonstrated that there were issues in how the scheduler worked, and that things could be improved with a simpler scheduler based on a different calculation. This got the attention of Ingo, who whipped up a better implementation of the same idea while Con was out sick. There were a couple of issues that Con had worked out that Ingo then had to work out again, because there wasn't good communication as to exactly what the problems were that Con had solved. Ultimately, Con succeeded, because he convinced one of the superhero coders to put his theory into practice.
Ironicly, when Con was working on the kernel, he had essential a fork, because he had his own mailing list and community of users. This just meant less communication with the core kernel community, which meant that it took longer for the mainline kernel, as shipped by (for example) Ubuntu for desktop use, to get the benefits of this attention to issues that desktop users were having.
The new scheduler is based around a different and better fundamental scheduler formula, which, as it turns out, can be made to also solve server workload problems better. So the fact is that (a) there was a fork before, and it has now been healed, at least partially, and (b) work was done in the "desktop" fork that turned out to be beneficial both to desktop users of the mainline fork and to big iron users.
Also languishing in the "desktop" fork is "swap prefetch"; nobody's been able to show a logical reason for an actual benefit for desktop users (and the original theory has been debunked; the benefit seems real, but they want to know what's actually going on so they don't accidentally break it again, and they might be able to fix it more effectively differently). On the other hand, it's a clear win and a big help for large CGI rendering installations, according to a representative from Dreamworks.
And Ingo managed to implement code that worked closer to Con's ideal formula than Con could write because Ingo was using timer code developed for big-iron server hosting support, so the fork was also bad for its own users. Forks are good short-term to get development done, but they also benefit from getting merged back in.
These reviews only make Linux very slightly stronger, because each one has only a little information on only a few items. He's given one example of a problem from each class of problems that he ran into, rather than a full list of everything that needs to be fixed to satisfy him. This is what the audience of the review needs to know to decide if they're sufficiently technical to be happy with Ubuntu, but it doesn't give Ubuntu a recipe for becoming meaningfully better. And, since he reported the most obvious case of each class of problem, these particular examples have largely been fixed in the next version already, but that doesn't mean much.
You've got a good memory, then. I had a Microsoft mouse for my IBM XT 20 years ago. I hear they eventually made a GUI that used it, too, that's become somewhat popular. Unfortunately, they didn't document it nearly as well as their mice, so it isn't nearly as nice to work with.
Ownership of the copyrights is half something that she needs to get dealt with before any other claims, because if she won on other claims, but the ownership turned out to be wrong, the actual owner could still sue her (since a judgment against the claimed owner wouldn't necessarily stick, since the actual owner shouldn't be hurt by the claimed owner arguing the case incompetently). And the actual owner might not be interested in suing her.
But it's pretty unlikely that the ownership isn't right, simply because copyrights can be bought and sold outside the public record, and if they still belonged to any of the other entities that registered them, those entities would probably have said something by now. This part of the request is probably, at the core, an attempt by the RIAA to have the issue get resolved without revealing the details of whatever deal transferred them to the general public.
My experience with USB has been that it basically always works perfectly with Linux, except for old devices that came out before there were USB standards for those things. My experience has been that Linux has better USB support than either Windows or OS X. Of course, Linux does have the issue where it supports a USB device, but there's no obvious point to start interacting with it (great, you've got a scanner. Now what?)
WiFi has actually been improving greatly in the past year, since there was somebody actually pushing things forward in the kernel community (before then, the networking maintainer was de facto maintainer, and he didn't know or care about wifi, and couldn't evaluate patches). The core part is in, the first few drivers are in the testing version, and a bunch more are coming shortly. I'd estimate that all intel wireless will work with a stock kernel (plus firmware image) by the end of november, for example.
Playing video with mplayer works perfectly for me, with the exception that in rare cases it doesn't have the audio codec, and in really rare cases it doesn't have the video codec (note that I'm on x86, and have Gentoo's non-open-source codec package installed). On the other hand, when my company has tried sending people videos, Windows users have complained, because they don't seem to have any audio or video codecs at all.
It's well-known that the police have and use tracking devices; they can get warrants for them and present the results as evidence in trials. And just because he has a couple of them doesn't mean that the police actually placed them where he says he found them. Maybe somebody at the police station where he picked up the cars was careless with inventory, and he swiped a couple.
The NRC was justifiably worried that it was pure luck that nothing really bad happened. It's not right to call it a disaster, but neither would it be reasonable to write it off entirely. If the same thing were to happen often, there would be an actual disaster before long, and the NRC is supposed to prevent disasters, not just identify them after the fact.
There are ways to make devices which have a lot of potential energy but a huge activation energy to release it, unless there are the right catalysts in place, and those catalysts will be damaged before too much energy comes out of the cell if the cell is damaged. It'll still release a lot of energy if it is somehow ignited (if you're in a burning building, stay away from the laptops), but at that point, there's already plenty of energy available in conventional building materials, and the volume the energy is packed into isn't too big a deal because anything nearby is being incinerated by whatever is igniting the battery.
The problem with lithium ion batteries is that, if they get damaged, this enables the reaction to go to completion unchecked. Lithium (ion) polymer batteries are based on the same chemistry, but if they get damaged, the reaction stops working. It's the same difference as between old-style and new-style nuclear reactors: if the new ones melt down, you're got a pile of radioactive waste; if the old ones melt down, you've got a bomb. Either can be made to explode with sufficient energy from outside, but only the old ones can be made to explode with only the energy in the fuel.
The missing step is that states that require PZEVs pay most of the extra cost, which only makes sense because the main benefit of PZEVs is to the locals when cars don't emit smog (since the relevant cars aren't any better aside from not emitting as much). So the real story is that only some states are paying to make the cars that drive there greener, and those states pay for it and want to protect their investment, and it would be pointless to try to sell greener cars to individual consumers when it's exclusively a benefit to the public good.
If car makers want to sell more of the PZEV versions, they'd advertize them to states that don't currently require them, and we wouldn't hear about it. If you think it's a worthy cause, tell your state legislature. There's no point in you personally trying to get one, because it doesn't make any difference to anybody whether you get one or one of your neighbors does. In fact, your money would probably be better spent upgrading a local cab or police car than your own car, because that would remove more pollution per dollar from your environment.
On the one hand, they don't have a right to insist on searching your bag. If they've got some reason to think that you've stolen something, and you don't convince them otherwise, their recourse is to call the police to investigate whether you've actually stolen something, and they better have a good reason to think you have.
On the other hand, they have the right to refuse to sell you anything in the future without giving any reason, and if you're substantially less willing to convince them of your honesty than the average customer, it may not be in their interests to do business with you (or, for that matter, allow you on their property). In order to do anything productive, both you and the store may have to make some concessions beyond your legal responsibilities. To the extent that these concessions are acceptable to you, you should make them.
For that matter, the original story is a bit weird in that the guy called the police, but then wouldn't provide the identification necessary to make a charge against the store employee. Had the cop been up on proper procedures for dealing with stubborn people, he'd have shrugged and left the store guy obstructing the car. No reason for the police to do anything about a situation based only on the statement of an uncooperative witness.
There's always AT&T teleconference systems. They'll get a voice asking for a password they don't have before they get to anything important, and that's unlikely to go away any time soon. You can find a ton of them by searching for corporate announcement conference call info.
There's a difference between lower bitrate and lower dynamic range. With lower bitrate, there's essentially a certain amount of noise or distortion being played in addition to the music, and this noise is specially tuned to be hard to hear. With the lower dynamic range, the music itself has been watered down. That is, it never gets much louder than it is normally. Now, there are some artists (e.g. Kronos Quartet) which kind of overuse dynamic range, such that you're listening to some faint music for a while and suddenly it's loud enough to startle you, but there's a reasonable dynamic range that music should have, where the band sometimes plays loud and sometimes soft, and there's a meaningful difference.
You ought to use EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="-avtDN", and know that world implies -u. So you can use "emerge " and "emerge world" and skip ever typing options. And you might want -k in there, too.
Obviously, they want Jon Stewart and Stephan Colbert's depositions because it's going to be really funny and make Viacom's position look stupid. Frankly, I'm surprised that more people don't depose Jon Stewart just to get snide commentary that will play well in front of a jury. In this case, it's even relevant so the jury could end up hearing it.
As I said, there are cases where a great programmer can do things that no quantity of average programmers can do at all. It's not even that uncommon. But if the company had a problem that 10 average programmers could do reasonably, you probably couldn't do it in the same amount of time, unless there was some clever shortcut, so you're not exactly doing the work of ten programmers. Sometimes better, sometimes not as good, but different in either case.
I've got the 3945. The new driver also does the newer one, 4965. All of the older ones have in-kernel old-style drivers; Intel says they're going to include them eventually, but there's no particular hurry because there's aleady a driver in the kernel.
There's no one programmer who does the work of ten other programmers. One uber-programmer does just as much work as one ordinary programmer. It's just that the results solve ten times as many problems. Programming is fundamentally a design problem. A great bridge designer doesn't do the work of ten lousy bridge designers; the great one designs one great bridge in the time it takes the ten lousy ones to design ten lousy bridges.
The best approximation is that each problem has a certain complexity and a certain size. The size determines how long it will take, and it doesn't matter how good the developers are. The complexity determines how good a developer is needed to make progress at all. If you've got only easy problems, an uber-programmer doesn't help you much (unless the programmer can find a smaller, harder problem that replaces the big easy one). If you've got a hard problem, ten average programmers will work on it forever without getting any results.
And there's one last thing specific to computers: the computer can solve easy problems for you, but making it do so is a hard problem. But solving that one hard problem (plus some processor time) resolves a lot of easy problems. Another type of hard problem is writing a magic library function that makes a range of moderately hard problems easy enough for average programmers to solve.
If you've got ten people essentially doing data entry, an uber-programmer may be able to eliminate the need for them to do that at all. If you've got ten developers working on some problem, an uber-programmer may be able to double their productivity. In either of these cases, the uber-programmer directly produces something that isn't part of the actual project, but the benefit to the project is on the order of ten average programmers' work. And, if the uber-programmer reduces the complexity of the problem to put it in reach of the rest of the team, no amount of ordinary programmers' work would benefit the project as much as the uber-programmer's contribution. Of course, if you require an uber-programmer to literally do the work of average programmers, there's no benefit at all.
Actually, Intel's fault in wifi is looking too far forward. They've got great drivers for their wifi chipsets, which will be in 2.6.23 when it comes out this fall. They're based on the 80211 stack which got into mainline in 2.6.22 (without any of the drivers that use it yet). There's been nothing stopping people from writing great Intel wifi drivers, except that there's been a great driver on the horizon from Intel, and nobody really wanted to tackle writing an obsolete one that could have been merged for a year before being replaced with a better-designed one. (Yes, I have been waiting for a year to be able to use nice all-open-source drivers on my Lenovo laptop with Intel wifi; how could you tell? At least the graphics drivers have actually arrived...)
Slashdot Mirror
The easiest way is to get the flashblock extension and some flash plugin, and never click on a flash thing. There's also some way to make a plugin registered for flash that does nothing.
It's fine to paint F/OSS advocates as amateurs. Most of them are, in fact, amateurs. Doesn't mean they're not going to turn out to be right, just that they don't get paid for it. The reason he's stupid is that he painted the world's largest and most careful computer company as a bunch of amateurs. If IBM thinks it's going to win a lawsuit, and you don't have a damn good reason to think otherwise, and you're not who they'd be bluffing, bet on them.
The OSS community is an important force these days, but it wasn't strictly relevant to the issue at hand, and the open legal community only became significant due to this case. It was a lawsuit by SCO against IBM, and only SCO and IBM had access to the contracts that affected it, and most of us aren't lawyers.
SCO (as Caldera) beating Microsoft isn't a good excuse, because everybody beats Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't bother to try in lawsuits; they drive people who sue them out of business or settle for a trivial (for Microsoft) amount of money, or simply ignore judgments. IBM plays differently, and doesn't lose the court cases.
Did you look at the second link? It's a link to Senate records, which show unambiguous facts: the stated purpose of the bill was "To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States", all of the democrats (but only one of the independants who caucused with them), and 5 republicans, including the ranking republican member of the judiciary committee voted, in favor of it, but a 3/5 majority was required for this motion.
For that matter, there are equal numbers of democrats and republicans in the senate right now; there are two independants who caucused with the democrats to give them majority status. But as far as people belonging to the party, the democrats don't have a majority in the senate, let alone the 3/5 majority needed.
Of course, the amendment could still survive a filibuster and be passed.
Ah, yes. I spaced out in the middle of that paragraph and thought you were counting that in things you blamed on OEMs (the problem with reading slashdot while drinking your morning coffee...). The real issue with plugging and unplugging is how much strain the connector puts on the solder joint and the circuit board and the circuit board's mounting when you use it, and therefore how many cycles it can go through before something breaks off, especially when the device doesn't have room for a lot of physical support. How often the user fails to use it on the first try is somewhat less of a concern, although it's best if people always succeed on the second try, and don't keep pushing on the thing.
I expect they'll make it 100% interactive in the duel mode. The fundamental issue is that players tend to rely on their characters to sword-fight competently, and wouldn't bother to learn to fence to play Red Steel. On the other hand, for a special light saber duel, it's reasonable for it to be up to the player to know how to fence.
On the other hand, the Wii doesn't have a very good idea of exactly where you're pointing the wiimote when you're not pointing it at the screen, so it may have to assume that you're parrying appropriately, but that should be relatively minor.
Actually, the mini-USB connector is standard, and they made it to replace all of the proprietary ones. The proprietary ones were used because the regular square connector was too big to use on portable devices. People weren't going to be happy with a digital camera where the space in the device devoted to optics was smaller than the space devoted to the USB jack. On new devices these days, you pretty much only see the little flat connector on things you're expected to unplug and the big square one on things you aren't expected to unplug, and the important difference is how tightly they hold.
The argument that the blog post was making was that, because Con stopped working on the kernel, and Ingo Molnar's scheduler got merged instead, this means that the desktop is being ignored. In fact, Con's work demonstrated that there were issues in how the scheduler worked, and that things could be improved with a simpler scheduler based on a different calculation. This got the attention of Ingo, who whipped up a better implementation of the same idea while Con was out sick. There were a couple of issues that Con had worked out that Ingo then had to work out again, because there wasn't good communication as to exactly what the problems were that Con had solved. Ultimately, Con succeeded, because he convinced one of the superhero coders to put his theory into practice.
Ironicly, when Con was working on the kernel, he had essential a fork, because he had his own mailing list and community of users. This just meant less communication with the core kernel community, which meant that it took longer for the mainline kernel, as shipped by (for example) Ubuntu for desktop use, to get the benefits of this attention to issues that desktop users were having.
The new scheduler is based around a different and better fundamental scheduler formula, which, as it turns out, can be made to also solve server workload problems better. So the fact is that (a) there was a fork before, and it has now been healed, at least partially, and (b) work was done in the "desktop" fork that turned out to be beneficial both to desktop users of the mainline fork and to big iron users.
Also languishing in the "desktop" fork is "swap prefetch"; nobody's been able to show a logical reason for an actual benefit for desktop users (and the original theory has been debunked; the benefit seems real, but they want to know what's actually going on so they don't accidentally break it again, and they might be able to fix it more effectively differently). On the other hand, it's a clear win and a big help for large CGI rendering installations, according to a representative from Dreamworks.
And Ingo managed to implement code that worked closer to Con's ideal formula than Con could write because Ingo was using timer code developed for big-iron server hosting support, so the fork was also bad for its own users. Forks are good short-term to get development done, but they also benefit from getting merged back in.
These reviews only make Linux very slightly stronger, because each one has only a little information on only a few items. He's given one example of a problem from each class of problems that he ran into, rather than a full list of everything that needs to be fixed to satisfy him. This is what the audience of the review needs to know to decide if they're sufficiently technical to be happy with Ubuntu, but it doesn't give Ubuntu a recipe for becoming meaningfully better. And, since he reported the most obvious case of each class of problem, these particular examples have largely been fixed in the next version already, but that doesn't mean much.
You've got a good memory, then. I had a Microsoft mouse for my IBM XT 20 years ago. I hear they eventually made a GUI that used it, too, that's become somewhat popular. Unfortunately, they didn't document it nearly as well as their mice, so it isn't nearly as nice to work with.
Ownership of the copyrights is half something that she needs to get dealt with before any other claims, because if she won on other claims, but the ownership turned out to be wrong, the actual owner could still sue her (since a judgment against the claimed owner wouldn't necessarily stick, since the actual owner shouldn't be hurt by the claimed owner arguing the case incompetently). And the actual owner might not be interested in suing her.
But it's pretty unlikely that the ownership isn't right, simply because copyrights can be bought and sold outside the public record, and if they still belonged to any of the other entities that registered them, those entities would probably have said something by now. This part of the request is probably, at the core, an attempt by the RIAA to have the issue get resolved without revealing the details of whatever deal transferred them to the general public.
My experience with USB has been that it basically always works perfectly with Linux, except for old devices that came out before there were USB standards for those things. My experience has been that Linux has better USB support than either Windows or OS X. Of course, Linux does have the issue where it supports a USB device, but there's no obvious point to start interacting with it (great, you've got a scanner. Now what?)
WiFi has actually been improving greatly in the past year, since there was somebody actually pushing things forward in the kernel community (before then, the networking maintainer was de facto maintainer, and he didn't know or care about wifi, and couldn't evaluate patches). The core part is in, the first few drivers are in the testing version, and a bunch more are coming shortly. I'd estimate that all intel wireless will work with a stock kernel (plus firmware image) by the end of november, for example.
Playing video with mplayer works perfectly for me, with the exception that in rare cases it doesn't have the audio codec, and in really rare cases it doesn't have the video codec (note that I'm on x86, and have Gentoo's non-open-source codec package installed). On the other hand, when my company has tried sending people videos, Windows users have complained, because they don't seem to have any audio or video codecs at all.
It's well-known that the police have and use tracking devices; they can get warrants for them and present the results as evidence in trials. And just because he has a couple of them doesn't mean that the police actually placed them where he says he found them. Maybe somebody at the police station where he picked up the cars was careless with inventory, and he swiped a couple.
The NRC was justifiably worried that it was pure luck that nothing really bad happened. It's not right to call it a disaster, but neither would it be reasonable to write it off entirely. If the same thing were to happen often, there would be an actual disaster before long, and the NRC is supposed to prevent disasters, not just identify them after the fact.
There are ways to make devices which have a lot of potential energy but a huge activation energy to release it, unless there are the right catalysts in place, and those catalysts will be damaged before too much energy comes out of the cell if the cell is damaged. It'll still release a lot of energy if it is somehow ignited (if you're in a burning building, stay away from the laptops), but at that point, there's already plenty of energy available in conventional building materials, and the volume the energy is packed into isn't too big a deal because anything nearby is being incinerated by whatever is igniting the battery.
The problem with lithium ion batteries is that, if they get damaged, this enables the reaction to go to completion unchecked. Lithium (ion) polymer batteries are based on the same chemistry, but if they get damaged, the reaction stops working. It's the same difference as between old-style and new-style nuclear reactors: if the new ones melt down, you're got a pile of radioactive waste; if the old ones melt down, you've got a bomb. Either can be made to explode with sufficient energy from outside, but only the old ones can be made to explode with only the energy in the fuel.
The missing step is that states that require PZEVs pay most of the extra cost, which only makes sense because the main benefit of PZEVs is to the locals when cars don't emit smog (since the relevant cars aren't any better aside from not emitting as much). So the real story is that only some states are paying to make the cars that drive there greener, and those states pay for it and want to protect their investment, and it would be pointless to try to sell greener cars to individual consumers when it's exclusively a benefit to the public good.
If car makers want to sell more of the PZEV versions, they'd advertize them to states that don't currently require them, and we wouldn't hear about it. If you think it's a worthy cause, tell your state legislature. There's no point in you personally trying to get one, because it doesn't make any difference to anybody whether you get one or one of your neighbors does. In fact, your money would probably be better spent upgrading a local cab or police car than your own car, because that would remove more pollution per dollar from your environment.
On the one hand, they don't have a right to insist on searching your bag. If they've got some reason to think that you've stolen something, and you don't convince them otherwise, their recourse is to call the police to investigate whether you've actually stolen something, and they better have a good reason to think you have.
On the other hand, they have the right to refuse to sell you anything in the future without giving any reason, and if you're substantially less willing to convince them of your honesty than the average customer, it may not be in their interests to do business with you (or, for that matter, allow you on their property). In order to do anything productive, both you and the store may have to make some concessions beyond your legal responsibilities. To the extent that these concessions are acceptable to you, you should make them.
For that matter, the original story is a bit weird in that the guy called the police, but then wouldn't provide the identification necessary to make a charge against the store employee. Had the cop been up on proper procedures for dealing with stubborn people, he'd have shrugged and left the store guy obstructing the car. No reason for the police to do anything about a situation based only on the statement of an uncooperative witness.
There's a Google Talk program? What they ought to do is contribute support for Google's XMPP extensions to Pidgin.
There's always AT&T teleconference systems. They'll get a voice asking for a password they don't have before they get to anything important, and that's unlikely to go away any time soon. You can find a ton of them by searching for corporate announcement conference call info.
There's a difference between lower bitrate and lower dynamic range. With lower bitrate, there's essentially a certain amount of noise or distortion being played in addition to the music, and this noise is specially tuned to be hard to hear. With the lower dynamic range, the music itself has been watered down. That is, it never gets much louder than it is normally. Now, there are some artists (e.g. Kronos Quartet) which kind of overuse dynamic range, such that you're listening to some faint music for a while and suddenly it's loud enough to startle you, but there's a reasonable dynamic range that music should have, where the band sometimes plays loud and sometimes soft, and there's a meaningful difference.
You ought to use EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="-avtDN", and know that world implies -u. So you can use "emerge " and "emerge world" and skip ever typing options. And you might want -k in there, too.
Obviously, they want Jon Stewart and Stephan Colbert's depositions because it's going to be really funny and make Viacom's position look stupid. Frankly, I'm surprised that more people don't depose Jon Stewart just to get snide commentary that will play well in front of a jury. In this case, it's even relevant so the jury could end up hearing it.
As I said, there are cases where a great programmer can do things that no quantity of average programmers can do at all. It's not even that uncommon. But if the company had a problem that 10 average programmers could do reasonably, you probably couldn't do it in the same amount of time, unless there was some clever shortcut, so you're not exactly doing the work of ten programmers. Sometimes better, sometimes not as good, but different in either case.
I've got the 3945. The new driver also does the newer one, 4965. All of the older ones have in-kernel old-style drivers; Intel says they're going to include them eventually, but there's no particular hurry because there's aleady a driver in the kernel.
There's no one programmer who does the work of ten other programmers. One uber-programmer does just as much work as one ordinary programmer. It's just that the results solve ten times as many problems. Programming is fundamentally a design problem. A great bridge designer doesn't do the work of ten lousy bridge designers; the great one designs one great bridge in the time it takes the ten lousy ones to design ten lousy bridges.
The best approximation is that each problem has a certain complexity and a certain size. The size determines how long it will take, and it doesn't matter how good the developers are. The complexity determines how good a developer is needed to make progress at all. If you've got only easy problems, an uber-programmer doesn't help you much (unless the programmer can find a smaller, harder problem that replaces the big easy one). If you've got a hard problem, ten average programmers will work on it forever without getting any results.
And there's one last thing specific to computers: the computer can solve easy problems for you, but making it do so is a hard problem. But solving that one hard problem (plus some processor time) resolves a lot of easy problems. Another type of hard problem is writing a magic library function that makes a range of moderately hard problems easy enough for average programmers to solve.
If you've got ten people essentially doing data entry, an uber-programmer may be able to eliminate the need for them to do that at all. If you've got ten developers working on some problem, an uber-programmer may be able to double their productivity. In either of these cases, the uber-programmer directly produces something that isn't part of the actual project, but the benefit to the project is on the order of ten average programmers' work. And, if the uber-programmer reduces the complexity of the problem to put it in reach of the rest of the team, no amount of ordinary programmers' work would benefit the project as much as the uber-programmer's contribution. Of course, if you require an uber-programmer to literally do the work of average programmers, there's no benefit at all.
Actually, Intel's fault in wifi is looking too far forward. They've got great drivers for their wifi chipsets, which will be in 2.6.23 when it comes out this fall. They're based on the 80211 stack which got into mainline in 2.6.22 (without any of the drivers that use it yet). There's been nothing stopping people from writing great Intel wifi drivers, except that there's been a great driver on the horizon from Intel, and nobody really wanted to tackle writing an obsolete one that could have been merged for a year before being replaced with a better-designed one. (Yes, I have been waiting for a year to be able to use nice all-open-source drivers on my Lenovo laptop with Intel wifi; how could you tell? At least the graphics drivers have actually arrived...)