From what I've seen, mac users have higher standards. Unlike the bulk of windows users, mac users tend to know with confidence how their computers are supposed to behave.. and anything that messes with that doesn't have much chance of gaining a foothold in the market.
Unless your boss really wants you out of his business immediately, he's going to be a bit nicer, bring in the new guy, ask you to train him, etc... and find a way to do it so you won't just walk on him.
Hopefully we do find a way to zonk ourselves around our universe without being limited by conventional travel at lightspeed.. however... I think the modern physics are pretty well established, speeds faster than C simply do not exist, they have no definition in our universe. It's not that we simply can't go faster, it's that faster speeds have no meaning. At lightspeed, time stops, motion ceases to be a valid concept.
We have seen the equivalent of a sonic boom in light.. sort of. The Cernekov (sp?) radiation.. when particles travel through a medium faster than lightspeed in that medium.
I wouldn't say it's like. Not having gone close to lightspeed myself as far as I know, obviously I have no firsthand information, but the speed of light as a limit is nothing like the speed of sound in any way. Rather than saying "nothing travels faster than the speed of light".. it would be more accurate to say "In our universe, speeds faster than the speed of light do not exist and have no meaning".
Flying snake - looks like more of a controlled fall.
Flying Squirrel - not really flying, but one hell of a long jump.
Flying Fish - Really, truly looks like it's flying. It's not just an extra-long jump.. they litereally glide over the water, just like a bird flying low.. for up to 100m. I've seen them in person, it's insane.
Therefore I declare that the flying fish is the only one that really deserves the name.
1) Unless required by law or contract, your two weeks notice are a professional courtesy. Don't forget that. You ARE being professional by giving two weeks when you don't need to.
2) A wacko boss cannot necessarily do much harm to your career. Real business people tend to see petty complaints from ex employers for what they are. Employers aren't all part of some "Boss" club or anything like that.
Not that I want quebec to separate, however: Having another nation use the Canadian dollar would not be bad for Canada in any way. Just because they use it doesn't mean they have direct influence on it. Nations have their own currencies so they can exercise greater control over their own economies.. not because other countries won't let them use theirs.
Steve Gibson wrote some great software.. but his crusade is a silly one.
The doom and gloom predicted because of raw sockets in XP hasn't come up yet, and how many years has XP been out?
This is a problem that currently isn't worth fixing. The DDOS problems the world suffers right now have nothing to do with raw sockets... most DDOS trojans dont' even bother spoofing.. when you control 30,000 hosts, you don't NEED to spoof.
The fact is, most DDOS trojans nowadays don't bother with spoofing packets. DDOS is just as effective without spoofing. When you control 10,000 machines distributed globally, you don't really need to spoof.
Actually, most zombies don't do IP spoofing, because it largely doesn't work due to ISP filtering. DDOS works because it's distributed.. they have no need to spoof.
No.. as the original author of some code, I am not bound by the GPL.. it's MY code, I can do whatever i want with it, including license it to whoever I want under whatever terms I want. The GPL is irrelevant to me.
The only thing I can't do is revoke the GPL from code I've already released.. you are still free to distribute that code as long as you follow the terms. I myself, however, have no obligations towards you.
In this situation, they are under no obligation to distribut code either... as the author of the software which I released under the GPL, I myself am NOT bound by the GPL.. I'm the author, I can do whatever I want.
Yes, however, if you simply checked your code into his CVS repository, which is usually teh case, you can't really say you "licensed" your code to him uder the GPL, can you.
It's not that cut & dried. A small bugfix may be a gift, but larger submissions of code are not necessarily so. Unless you can show some kind of transfer of rights from the submitting author, they still retain copyright on their own code. This is an issue that should be addressed by more projects, and is often left untouched.
Also, regarding the EFF... they insist on copyright asignment for contributions.. this also means the EFF could re-license all their code any way they see fit, and nobody can do anything about it.
Yes, but as one of those server people, I want the latest versions of PHP, Postgres, Apache, Perl, Python, MySQL, and a few other select server packages.
I sure don't get any of that with 'stable'.
Debian was a good fire-and-forget system when stable was released 3 years ago.. nowadays, it's just as good.. as long as 3 year old packages are okay with you.
Debian stable was CURRENT when it came out... it had up to date versions of critical software, it was an attractive solution for business. It still could be, if they'd get their act together and have more frequent stable releases.
Please quit pretending that's stable is 3 years old out of some wise plan. it was never supposed to be this out of date. STABLE refers to package depenedencies, not to the software's ability to not crash.
I am begging for debian to release a stable set of software that's not half a decade out of date, or I'm going to switch to something else, because if I can't run 2 year old software on it without doing it by hand from source, what's the point of using Debian?
When I pushed this organization onto Debian (from redhat), STABLE had current, up to date packages on it. Not bleeding edge, but current. If it could somehow magically be "stable" and have current packages on it 3 years ago, don't you think it's logical that it could do the same today?
Do you honestly think STABLE is supposed to have 3 year old packages in it? This is the oldest, most out of date STABLE we've ever had.
It's not old because "that's how you keep it stable"
It's old because of an organizational inability to get testing stable... due to the number of platforms supported, the bulk of software involved, etc.
STABLE in the Debian sense doesn't mean "it won't crash".. it means the package dependencies are stable; that you won't find missing packages. and that's ALL it means.
This is the internet age.. we need up to date software.
I can tell you, running any of our corporate servers on debian now necessitates us using packages form testing and even from unstable, or we build them from source. And if we have to do that, we've lost the benefit we had of using debian in the first place.
I'm seriously contemplating just switching to FreeBSD for this reason, at least it's consistant.
I still can't imagine how you can equate that to being Intel's responsibility. The only way intel could be responsible at all is if they purchased a stolen copy.. but they didn't.
LOTS of collectible items are worth a lot of money, and are available quite easily if you are willing to steal them.. does that make the collectors who are willing to pay absurd amounts of money responsible? Of course not.
Why does it have to be an attitude? Linus has always maintained that it's his kernel tree, and that if you don't like the way he manages it, you are more than free to keep your own tree. The kernel is GPL, after all. You won't hear linus complaining if someone forks his kernel and attention shifts away.. linus will continue to integrate things he wants to integrate.
So you mean if I, say, post an ad that I'm looking for a cheap car that I'm encouraging people to steal cars to sell to me? Or that if I ask around for a cheap place to buy groceries, I'm encouraging people to shoplift and sell to me directly?
Undocumented because they are not "public" apis, and not guaranteed to be supported in the next release of OSX. As long as that part is clear, go ahead.
But please, let's not complain about apple not documenting function calls.. apple is very clear about which APIs are official and supported.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I've seen, mac users have higher standards. Unlike the bulk of windows users, mac users tend to know with confidence how their computers are supposed to behave.. and anything that messes with that doesn't have much chance of gaining a foothold in the market.
Sure they can, in that unlikely situation.
Unless your boss really wants you out of his business immediately, he's going to be a bit nicer, bring in the new guy, ask you to train him, etc... and find a way to do it so you won't just walk on him.
I think we need to stop calling them "artificial" diamonds.
Call them lab-grown, or man-made, but not artificial. Artificial implies that it's not the same thing, like an artificial limb, or artificial grass.
Hopefully we do find a way to zonk ourselves around our universe without being limited by conventional travel at lightspeed.. however... I think the modern physics are pretty well established, speeds faster than C simply do not exist, they have no definition in our universe. It's not that we simply can't go faster, it's that faster speeds have no meaning. At lightspeed, time stops, motion ceases to be a valid concept.
We have seen the equivalent of a sonic boom in light.. sort of. The Cernekov (sp?) radiation.. when particles travel through a medium faster than lightspeed in that medium.
I wouldn't say it's like. Not having gone close to lightspeed myself as far as I know, obviously I have no firsthand information, but the speed of light as a limit is nothing like the speed of sound in any way. Rather than saying "nothing travels faster than the speed of light".. it would be more accurate to say "In our universe, speeds faster than the speed of light do not exist and have no meaning".
Flying snake - looks like more of a controlled fall.
Flying Squirrel - not really flying, but one hell of a long jump.
Flying Fish - Really, truly looks like it's flying. It's not just an extra-long jump.. they litereally glide over the water, just like a bird flying low.. for up to 100m. I've seen them in person, it's insane.
Therefore I declare that the flying fish is the only one that really deserves the name.
it's not totally evil.
It installs the widget, but does not activate it.. it just makes it available.
Further, widgets do run in a sandbox, and require user approval to execute if they want to do certain things (like erase your HD).
Honestly, apple should have said "would you like to install this widget?".. that would be sensible and courteous.
1) Unless required by law or contract, your two weeks notice are a professional courtesy. Don't forget that. You ARE being professional by giving two weeks when you don't need to.
2) A wacko boss cannot necessarily do much harm to your career. Real business people tend to see petty complaints from ex employers for what they are. Employers aren't all part of some "Boss" club or anything like that.
Not that I want quebec to separate, however:
Having another nation use the Canadian dollar would not be bad for Canada in any way. Just because they use it doesn't mean they have direct influence on it. Nations have their own currencies so they can exercise greater control over their own economies.. not because other countries won't let them use theirs.
Can microsoft's indexing service find active photoshop layers? Window names?
But most DDOS bots don't bother with raw sockets... they don't need to.
When you control thousands of bots, you don't need spoofing.
Steve Gibson wrote some great software.. but his crusade is a silly one.
The doom and gloom predicted because of raw sockets in XP hasn't come up yet, and how many years has XP been out?
This is a problem that currently isn't worth fixing. The DDOS problems the world suffers right now have nothing to do with raw sockets... most DDOS trojans dont' even bother spoofing.. when you control 30,000 hosts, you don't NEED to spoof.
The fact is, most DDOS trojans nowadays don't bother with spoofing packets. DDOS is just as effective without spoofing. When you control 10,000 machines distributed globally, you don't really need to spoof.
Actually, most zombies don't do IP spoofing, because it largely doesn't work due to ISP filtering. DDOS works because it's distributed.. they have no need to spoof.
No.. as the original author of some code, I am not bound by the GPL.. it's MY code, I can do whatever i want with it, including license it to whoever I want under whatever terms I want. The GPL is irrelevant to me.
The only thing I can't do is revoke the GPL from code I've already released.. you are still free to distribute that code as long as you follow the terms. I myself, however, have no obligations towards you.
In this situation, they are under no obligation to distribut code either... as the author of the software which I released under the GPL, I myself am NOT bound by the GPL.. I'm the author, I can do whatever I want.
Yes, however, if you simply checked your code into his CVS repository, which is usually teh case, you can't really say you "licensed" your code to him uder the GPL, can you.
It's not that cut & dried. A small bugfix may be a gift, but larger submissions of code are not necessarily so. Unless you can show some kind of transfer of rights from the submitting author, they still retain copyright on their own code. This is an issue that should be addressed by more projects, and is often left untouched.
Also, regarding the EFF... they insist on copyright asignment for contributions.. this also means the EFF could re-license all their code any way they see fit, and nobody can do anything about it.
Yes, but as one of those server people, I want the latest versions of PHP, Postgres, Apache, Perl, Python, MySQL, and a few other select server packages.
I sure don't get any of that with 'stable'.
Debian was a good fire-and-forget system when stable was released 3 years ago.. nowadays, it's just as good.. as long as 3 year old packages are okay with you.
Debian stable was CURRENT when it came out... it had up to date versions of critical software, it was an attractive solution for business. It still could be, if they'd get their act together and have more frequent stable releases.
Please quit pretending that's stable is 3 years old out of some wise plan. it was never supposed to be this out of date. STABLE refers to package depenedencies, not to the software's ability to not crash.
I am begging for debian to release a stable set of software that's not half a decade out of date, or I'm going to switch to something else, because if I can't run 2 year old software on it without doing it by hand from source, what's the point of using Debian?
When I pushed this organization onto Debian (from redhat), STABLE had current, up to date packages on it. Not bleeding edge, but current. If it could somehow magically be "stable" and have current packages on it 3 years ago, don't you think it's logical that it could do the same today?
Do you honestly think STABLE is supposed to have 3 year old packages in it? This is the oldest, most out of date STABLE we've ever had.
It's not old because "that's how you keep it stable"
It's old because of an organizational inability to get testing stable... due to the number of platforms supported, the bulk of software involved, etc.
STABLE in the Debian sense doesn't mean "it won't crash".. it means the package dependencies are stable; that you won't find missing packages. and that's ALL it means.
This is the internet age.. we need up to date software.
I can tell you, running any of our corporate servers on debian now necessitates us using packages form testing and even from unstable, or we build them from source. And if we have to do that, we've lost the benefit we had of using debian in the first place.
I'm seriously contemplating just switching to FreeBSD for this reason, at least it's consistant.
I still can't imagine how you can equate that to being Intel's responsibility. The only way intel could be responsible at all is if they purchased a stolen copy.. but they didn't.
LOTS of collectible items are worth a lot of money, and are available quite easily if you are willing to steal them.. does that make the collectors who are willing to pay absurd amounts of money responsible? Of course not.
Why does it have to be an attitude? Linus has always maintained that it's his kernel tree, and that if you don't like the way he manages it, you are more than free to keep your own tree. The kernel is GPL, after all.
You won't hear linus complaining if someone forks his kernel and attention shifts away.. linus will continue to integrate things he wants to integrate.
Wow...
So you mean if I, say, post an ad that I'm looking for a cheap car that I'm encouraging people to steal cars to sell to me? Or that if I ask around for a cheap place to buy groceries, I'm encouraging people to shoplift and sell to me directly?
My god.. what's this country coming to!
Undocumented because they are not "public" apis, and not guaranteed to be supported in the next release of OSX. As long as that part is clear, go ahead.
But please, let's not complain about apple not documenting function calls.. apple is very clear about which APIs are official and supported.