While 25% of the universe's hydrogen may have been converted to heavier elements, about 24% was converted in the first second or so, and then about 1% in the ensuing 13.7 billion years. At that rate, there will be plenty left in 100 billion years time.
I HAVE spent 2000+ hours using Adobe InDesign in the past year, and I do use optical kerning on almost every body of text I deal with. I'm guessing this is what they are talking about (although optical kerning would work much better with fonts with good kerning pairs).
Really? You shouldn't.
If you're using decent fonts, they come with kerning pairs which will work at the size for which they're intended (so body fonts should not need optical kerning at body copy sizes). Optical kerning is for those times when, for example, you run Gill Sans at 60 points. Then it's default kerning pairs will be far too wide, and optical kerning will provide better kerning pairs.
Still, none of that beats properly done manual kerning, but you only ever expect to do that on a headline. Even then, it's better to start with something that's close to right.
I am a trained, professional graphic designer. I talk with many other graphic designers. I can assure you that "trashy" is exactly the word we apply to anything that is recognisably clipart.
Of course you can still write crypto software under GPL v3. That clause just means that the security measures you've created have no legal protection from circumvention.
In other words, you could write ssh under GPL v3, but it would be legal to crack it. Not necessarily possible, just legal.
I still don't understand. When I look at the light bounced off the surface, I'm still looking at it as RGB. My eyes don't see CMY. The subtractive model is the approximation, not the addative.
No, because CMYK are the inks that will actually be used to print the document on paper. Therefore, it's your output colourspace. If you want your colours to look right when they're printed, you need to work in that output colourspace.
Depending on the software, and the RIP, used by your printer, supplying them RGB images can produce some horrible results.
Re:About as viral as accidentally giving away secr
on
What if SCO is Right?
·
· Score: 1
4. After a few months comparing the code, they find some that matches.
5. As soon as they find them, they drop their Linux product, and launch a lawsuit.
True, the "getting my own office" comment was made by the person who submitted the article, not in the article itself. You have to admit that the article seems to support the idea pretty strongly, though.
Yep.
From my reading of the article, I'd say he considered giving programmers their own offices to be the ideal situation, just not absolutely necessary.
Personally, I'd find spending my day in a room with nothing but me and a computer pretty depressing, but I'm sure there are plenty of people around here who would disagree.
In particular, such research as I've seen (sorry, can't cite a link off the top of my head) suggested that actually, a small team of programmers was much more productive in their own open-plan-like "team space".
He didn't actually say that the programmers needed to be in their own offices, or even that all interruptions are bad. He just said that they shouldn't be interrupted by anything that's not related to the task at hand. In other words, sharing space with people working on the same/similar problems is not going to have a negative impact.
Having said that, I'm not entirely sure he's right even then. Often, when you get stuck with some problem, getting interrupted by something unrelated and going back to it can lead you to a solution. Still, I guess it's better if you get to choose the moment for those sorts of interruption.
I coded my site and did all my graphics and the simple yet crisp look of the page IMO is sweet. But! Putting that GNU head on my front page is not going to happen...
Personally, I'm quite fond of the "Boar's head,", but I can see why you wouldn't want it on your site. However, That's the GNU logo. You say you want to support the FSF on your site - well how about you put up the Free Software Foundation logo. That's fairly clean and professional looking.
But then again, since when are Windows XP, Beos and Mac OS X Desktop Environments? Shouldn't that be Explorer, Tracker and Finder?
Of course, you'd have to be a complete arsehole to worry about those kinds of detail. Especially when there are so many better reasons why the article was crap.
Well, first, it's a trademark, not copyright. Copyrights, patents and trademarks are all very different, and you should be carefull which you're talking about.
And secondly, yes, they do have a trademark on the word "Windows."
On an almost on-topic note, I've gotta point out this site.
The spectrum had some of the coolest games ever, and the guys at Retrospec have made some great remakes. For those of you who were unfortunate enough to never have a Spectrum, I'd especially recommend any of the versions of Manic Miner, and Klass of '99 (a remake of Skool Daze).
I'm sure I still have a working Spectrum around here somewhere...
I've never actually run any of the BSDs, so take this with the sizable pinch of salt it deserves. However, my understanding is that FreeBSD supports most of the hardware for which there are open source drivers for linux. I guess the reasons for that are pretty obvious.
In terms of winmodems, Linux actually supports quite a few of them, these days. Hell, I'm using a Linux supported winmodem now.
But, a lot of the linux drivers for winmodems are binary only - which means that they're only supported by FreeBSD if the manufacturers also released a FreeBSD binary. Which they don't. Having said that, there are open source drivers for at least some of the winmodems, so I would assume that FreeBSD supports at least some of them.
The point was, though, that while a particular winmodem may be supported, the response you often get for asking for assistance with getting one working, particularly in certain areas of the Linux community, is less than helpful.
Newton's theory says nothing either way on the subject of mass increase. He wasn't wrong about that any more than he was wrong for not predicting that George W Bush would win the last presidential election.
Classical physics often assumed that mass was constant, because in all the cases they were considering it effectively was. Nonetheless, as I stated above, nothing in the last few hundred years of physics has in any way contradicted any of Newton's laws.
According to the Newton's "laws" if you apply constatnt force to an object of constant mass, you could accelerate it and make its speed be infinity, and that as we all know is bullshit.
Wrong again - that is, in fact, true. The problem is that due to relativistic effects, the mass is not constant. As you approach the speed of light, the mass of the object approaches infinity. Since f=ma, for a constant force, the acceleration decreases as the mass increases.
Slashdot Mirror
While 25% of the universe's hydrogen may have been converted to heavier elements, about 24% was converted in the first second or so, and then about 1% in the ensuing 13.7 billion years. At that rate, there will be plenty left in 100 billion years time.
I HAVE spent 2000+ hours using Adobe InDesign in the past year, and I do use optical kerning on almost every body of text I deal with. I'm guessing this is what they are talking about (although optical kerning would work much better with fonts with good kerning pairs).
Really? You shouldn't.
If you're using decent fonts, they come with kerning pairs which will work at the size for which they're intended (so body fonts should not need optical kerning at body copy sizes). Optical kerning is for those times when, for example, you run Gill Sans at 60 points. Then it's default kerning pairs will be far too wide, and optical kerning will provide better kerning pairs.
Still, none of that beats properly done manual kerning, but you only ever expect to do that on a headline. Even then, it's better to start with something that's close to right.
I am a trained, professional graphic designer. I talk with many other graphic designers. I can assure you that "trashy" is exactly the word we apply to anything that is recognisably clipart.
You do realise that in 1995 most of that sort of stuff was done on 64-bit computers like SGIs or Suns, right? Well, either that or a Mac.
Still, I'm sure both of Corel Draw's users thank you for announcing they're the only ones living in the real world.
Having suffered through actually reading Moby Dick, I think I like your version better
Because writing an entirely new content management system is actually easier than figuring out how to use the mess that is Zope/Plone.
Get the font here.
Huh, that's odd. I could have sworn that I was reading this in Opera on Mac OS X right now.
Gotta agree about the other two browsers, though.
From man yum:
-C Tells yum to run entirely from cache - does not download or update any headers unless it has to to perform the requested action.
Of course you can still write crypto software under GPL v3. That clause just means that the security measures you've created have no legal protection from circumvention.
In other words, you could write ssh under GPL v3, but it would be legal to crack it. Not necessarily possible, just legal.
Spoken like a man who's never had to use Quark Xpress.
Just surf slashdot at -1, and you'll never need to type goatse.cx - thus, no worries about mis-spelling it.
I still don't understand. When I look at the light bounced off the surface, I'm still looking at it as RGB. My eyes don't see CMY. The subtractive model is the approximation, not the addative.
No, because CMYK are the inks that will actually be used to print the document on paper. Therefore, it's your output colourspace. If you want your colours to look right when they're printed, you need to work in that output colourspace.
Depending on the software, and the RIP, used by your printer, supplying them RGB images can produce some horrible results.
Linux is the only os that does not incorporate drm copyprotection so it must be stoped.
Well, it will soon according to Linus.
4. After a few months comparing the code, they find some that matches. 5. As soon as they find them, they drop their Linux product, and launch a lawsuit.
Except that it looks to me like they're still distributing Linux.
Solaris. AIX. HP-UX. They all use SCO code.
But an actual Unix bought from SCO? That's a lot harder. I'm told it's often used in things like RIPs, but I've never actually seen it in the wild.
True, the "getting my own office" comment was made by the person who submitted the article, not in the article itself. You have to admit that the article seems to support the idea pretty strongly, though.
Yep.
From my reading of the article, I'd say he considered giving programmers their own offices to be the ideal situation, just not absolutely necessary.
Personally, I'd find spending my day in a room with nothing but me and a computer pretty depressing, but I'm sure there are plenty of people around here who would disagree.
In particular, such research as I've seen (sorry, can't cite a link off the top of my head) suggested that actually, a small team of programmers was much more productive in their own open-plan-like "team space".
He didn't actually say that the programmers needed to be in their own offices, or even that all interruptions are bad. He just said that they shouldn't be interrupted by anything that's not related to the task at hand. In other words, sharing space with people working on the same/similar problems is not going to have a negative impact.
Having said that, I'm not entirely sure he's right even then. Often, when you get stuck with some problem, getting interrupted by something unrelated and going back to it can lead you to a solution. Still, I guess it's better if you get to choose the moment for those sorts of interruption.
I coded my site and did all my graphics and the simple yet crisp look of the page IMO is sweet. But! Putting that GNU head on my front page is not going to happen...
Personally, I'm quite fond of the "Boar's head,", but I can see why you wouldn't want it on your site. However, That's the GNU logo. You say you want to support the FSF on your site - well how about you put up the Free Software Foundation logo. That's fairly clean and professional looking.
But then again, since when are Windows XP, Beos and Mac OS X Desktop Environments? Shouldn't that be Explorer, Tracker and Finder?
Of course, you'd have to be a complete arsehole to worry about those kinds of detail. Especially when there are so many better reasons why the article was crap.
Well, first, it's a trademark, not copyright. Copyrights, patents and trademarks are all very different, and you should be carefull which you're talking about.
And secondly, yes, they do have a trademark on the word "Windows."
On an almost on-topic note, I've gotta point out this site.
The spectrum had some of the coolest games ever, and the guys at Retrospec have made some great remakes. For those of you who were unfortunate enough to never have a Spectrum, I'd especially recommend any of the versions of Manic Miner, and Klass of '99 (a remake of Skool Daze).
I'm sure I still have a working Spectrum around here somewhere...
I've never actually run any of the BSDs, so take this with the sizable pinch of salt it deserves. However, my understanding is that FreeBSD supports most of the hardware for which there are open source drivers for linux. I guess the reasons for that are pretty obvious.
In terms of winmodems, Linux actually supports quite a few of them, these days. Hell, I'm using a Linux supported winmodem now.
But, a lot of the linux drivers for winmodems are binary only - which means that they're only supported by FreeBSD if the manufacturers also released a FreeBSD binary. Which they don't. Having said that, there are open source drivers for at least some of the winmodems, so I would assume that FreeBSD supports at least some of them.
The point was, though, that while a particular winmodem may be supported, the response you often get for asking for assistance with getting one working, particularly in certain areas of the Linux community, is less than helpful.
Newton's theory says nothing either way on the subject of mass increase. He wasn't wrong about that any more than he was wrong for not predicting that George W Bush would win the last presidential election.
Classical physics often assumed that mass was constant, because in all the cases they were considering it effectively was. Nonetheless, as I stated above, nothing in the last few hundred years of physics has in any way contradicted any of Newton's laws.
According to the Newton's "laws" if you apply constatnt force to an object of constant mass, you could accelerate it and make its speed be infinity, and that as we all know is bullshit.
Wrong again - that is, in fact, true. The problem is that due to relativistic effects, the mass is not constant. As you approach the speed of light, the mass of the object approaches infinity. Since f=ma, for a constant force, the acceleration decreases as the mass increases.
Newton wins again.