This is hardly insightful. The comments of RMS are not about terminology per se. Brown assumes Linus wrote an entire operating system in 6 months. Brown also assumes this is impossible and Linus must have stolen code.
The point RMS is trying to make is that Linus did not write an operating system, but only a kernel. This distiction is important and shows that Brown is jumping to conclusions on the basis of false assumptions.
Watch the video's, they make perfectly clear how eye contact is determined.
Someone could appear to be looking at you. But in reality, you could easily be in their line of sight
This is a problem even humans face. How do I know that someone who is looking in my direction is indeed looking at me. This is very common at train stations or air ports, where you gaze over a crowd in search of a friend or relative. You probably have them in your line of sight a couple of times, but in many cases you just don't/see/ them.
OK, I'm sorry for correcting an otherwise funny comment, but there seems to be much confusion about copyright lay and patent law that I think could some correction.
Patent law is about the implementation of ideas. Cisco filed a patent for their implementation of secured TCP. Anyone who wants to use the same implementation for the duration of the patent has to license the right to do so from Cisco.
Copyright on the other hand is about the contents of artistic word like books. There is no need to file for copyright since it's an automatic right obtained by creating those works. If people develop similar works totally independent from each other, that's fine.
In Holland we use the DD/MM/YYYY-notation and can only pronouce it as "5 juni". The much used phrase 9/11 is confusing because in our book it should refer to "9 november".
The only reason I can think of DD/MM/YYYY is more logical than MM/DD/YYYY is because the increasing size of the time spans. But than again, in the common HH:MM:SS notation the sizes are decreasing.
As other readers pointed out YYYYMMDD is very nice for sorting. Others say ISO should be used. But even then MM and DD can still be confusing.
Get a hold on yourself. This is nonsense. There is no reason to rely of the fact that most people have [WMP] installed.
I use linux exclusively at home and I have no problem with any kind of streaming media format. If mplayer won't do the job xine will. I'm sure there are others.
The reason why I might not be able to play a stream is because some IE-only javascript monkey had coded a cruftly custom interface to play the streams.
Offer your streams as a normal url (mms:// for example) and let your audience choose the player of their liking. You'll be fine.
If you want everyone to use something, it's stupid to then claim a patent on it.
Unless of course you want everybody to pay you for the use of this standard, which is what the majority of these companies want.
Put out a standard and have everybody use it. Then after a while pull out your patents and force everybody to start paying you money or stop using your standard.
It's a sleazy business tactic, but we have seen this happening with gif and mp3 for example.
Seriously, WordPerfect has a number of functions with regard to advanced document formatting that Open Office.org, for all of its usefulness, lacks.
I would be very interested to know which functions those are. Could you elaborate on that for a minute?
Plus, there's the ever-wonderful option to actually view the document code, and manually correct the hidden formatting bugs that inflict themselves on my Word and OpenOffice.org use from time to time.
A word processor should be able to optimise the code by itself. Being able to fix the bugs yourself by editing hidden code might be quite nice, but it would far better if a word processor didn't ran into those problems in the first place. I've never encountered those bugs in OOo either.
If I wanted to look at the code, I'd use tex or docbook xml or something like that. I've used those for specific tasks and found them very useful, but a general word processing task should not need those tight control over underlying code. But that is just MHO.
This is a funny article that featured on slashdot a couple of years ago. I describes the differences in culture one has to pay attention to while writing technical documentation for international audiences. For instance:
And while Italian and French users were very happy with printer documentation that included pictures of naked women with slim, strategically placed tinted bars showing how colors were reproduced, Esposito doubts that particular manual will be used anywhere else.
While you are technically correct, I think the essence of the parent post was that the legitimity of Bush' decission to send soldiers to Iraq depended on the assumption of WMD.
If those weapons are still not found, Bush should not joke about that but maybe admit those soldiers were killed in the persued of an initially erroneous cause.
This is no big deal. Unless you have configured your browser in a special way, it will gladly give out the URL of the page you were coming from to the page you are going to.
The HTTP 1.1 standard includes this "referrer" statement in the headers of http. Following the direct link you posted, and watching mozilla discuss with the server through the mozilla module Live HTTP Headers, you can see your browser gives out this information:
There is nothing wrong with promoting good discussions by citing the relevant bits that we are interested in as you phrase it. The post however does say it contains a quotation or why this particular piece of information is interesting. Instead. it portraits the quotation as the opinion of the poster him/herself.
That is just bad and misleading posting IMHO, and should not be rewarded.
Dan Gillmor link to the Patent Application Information Retrieval for this patent. All actions with regard to this patent are being logged there in the The File Contents History.
A interesting entree from 02-23-2001 says: Case Reported Lost! Unfortunately it was found again.:(
As part of the new Disney-Microsoft deal, Bill Gates will be starring as Peter Pan in the new Disney remake of this well known epos. A source close to Microsoft said that Steve Balmer will co-star as Tinkerbell.
Re:not really a review
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
A review should add new information or insights which are not obvious or stated in the programm's own announcement.
Take a look at the reviews at ArsTechnica, for instance at this one about Mac OS. The multipage review contains background information about the inner workings, some words about usability, differences with previous versions, information about performance, balanced and substantiated views about what should be improved and an informative conclusion. That is what I think should be considered a review.
not really a review
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This is not a review. It's just a rehash of some parts of the kde3.2 announcement enhanced with a few screenshots and personal comments.
This weird comoving future visibility limit that is mentioned at the top of the map is explained in detail in the paper:
[...] which shows how far a photon can travel in co-moving coordinates from the inflationary big bang to the infinite future.[...] This is the co-moving future visibility limit. No matter how long we wait, we will not be able to see further than this. This is surprisingly close.
Maybe by pushing for upgrades only with Office and backend items they can leave 98 on the desktops and save themselves from companies going with a mass conversion to Linux?
While Microsoft keeps pushing Office upgrades, I wonder how many corporations will notice the benefits of OpenOffice then;)
Your critisisme towards Linux is waaay too general
Linux per se is free of charge. Some companies might charge for their support, manuals or precompiled binaries. But that doesn't really change the fact that Linux itself free.
Slashdot Mirror
The point RMS is trying to make is that Linus did not write an operating system, but only a kernel. This distiction is important and shows that Brown is jumping to conclusions on the basis of false assumptions.
Watch the video's, they make perfectly clear how eye contact is determined.
Someone could appear to be looking at you. But in reality, you could easily be in their line of sight
This is a problem even humans face. How do I know that someone who is looking in my direction is indeed looking at me. This is very common at train stations or air ports, where you gaze over a crowd in search of a friend or relative. You probably have them in your line of sight a couple of times, but in many cases you just don't /see/ them.
but in that case identification might not be so big a problem
Patent law is about the implementation of ideas. Cisco filed a patent for their implementation of secured TCP. Anyone who wants to use the same implementation for the duration of the patent has to license the right to do so from Cisco.
Copyright on the other hand is about the contents of artistic word like books. There is no need to file for copyright since it's an automatic right obtained by creating those works. If people develop similar works totally independent from each other, that's fine.
A Google search should give you more information.
Talking to self: ;) Duh!
That is ofcourse only in case the date reads 05-06-2004.
The only reason I can think of DD/MM/YYYY is more logical than MM/DD/YYYY is because the increasing size of the time spans. But than again, in the common HH:MM:SS notation the sizes are decreasing.
As other readers pointed out YYYYMMDD is very nice for sorting. Others say ISO should be used. But even then MM and DD can still be confusing.
I opt for star dates. ;)
Get a hold on yourself. This is nonsense. There is no reason to rely of the fact that most people have [WMP] installed.
I use linux exclusively at home and I have no problem with any kind of streaming media format. If mplayer won't do the job xine will. I'm sure there are others.
The reason why I might not be able to play a stream is because some IE-only javascript monkey had coded a cruftly custom interface to play the streams.
Offer your streams as a normal url (mms:// for example) and let your audience choose the player of their liking. You'll be fine.
Unless of course you want everybody to pay you for the use of this standard, which is what the majority of these companies want.
Put out a standard and have everybody use it. Then after a while pull out your patents and force everybody to start paying you money or stop using your standard.
It's a sleazy business tactic, but we have seen this happening with gif and mp3 for example.
I would be very interested to know which functions those are. Could you elaborate on that for a minute?
Plus, there's the ever-wonderful option to actually view the document code, and manually correct the hidden formatting bugs that inflict themselves on my Word and OpenOffice.org use from time to time.A word processor should be able to optimise the code by itself. Being able to fix the bugs yourself by editing hidden code might be quite nice, but it would far better if a word processor didn't ran into those problems in the first place. I've never encountered those bugs in OOo either.
If I wanted to look at the code, I'd use tex or docbook xml or something like that. I've used those for specific tasks and found them very useful, but a general word processing task should not need those tight control over underlying code. But that is just MHO.
This should definately be part of devfs. You should be able to say something like:
dd if=/dev/nuke of=/dev/[your enemy] count=5
Good luck!
This is a funny article that featured on slashdot a couple of years ago. I describes the differences in culture one has to pay attention to while writing technical documentation for international audiences. For instance:
And while Italian and French users were very happy with printer documentation that included pictures of naked women with slim, strategically placed tinted bars showing how colors were reproduced, Esposito doubts that particular manual will be used anywhere else.
This might be offtopic but is funny as hell nonetheless. I just gave away my points, but I would surely have modded this up as funny.
While you are technically correct, I think the essence of the parent post was that the legitimity of Bush' decission to send soldiers to Iraq depended on the assumption of WMD.
If those weapons are still not found, Bush should not joke about that but maybe admit those soldiers were killed in the persued of an initially erroneous cause.
This is no big deal. Unless you have configured your browser in a special way, it will gladly give out the URL of the page you were coming from to the page you are going to.
0 2/25/0857235&mode=nested
The HTTP 1.1 standard includes this "referrer" statement in the headers of http. Following the direct link you posted, and watching mozilla discuss with the server through the mozilla module Live HTTP Headers, you can see your browser gives out this information:
Referer: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/
You're a troll allright, but here I go:
There is nothing wrong with promoting good discussions by citing the relevant bits that we are interested in as you phrase it. The post however does say it contains a quotation or why this particular piece of information is interesting. Instead. it portraits the quotation as the opinion of the poster him/herself.
That is just bad and misleading posting IMHO, and should not be rewarded.
The post contains an exact quote from the article, nothing more
And since a patch is available, it could also be considered "Adaptable" ;)
Dan Gillmor link to the Patent Application Information Retrieval for this patent. All actions with regard to this patent are being logged there in the The File Contents History.
:(
A interesting entree from 02-23-2001 says: Case Reported Lost! Unfortunately it was found again.
As part of the new Disney-Microsoft deal, Bill Gates will be starring as Peter Pan in the new Disney remake of this well known epos. A source close to Microsoft said that Steve Balmer will co-star as Tinkerbell.
A review should add new information or insights which are not obvious or stated in the programm's own announcement.
Take a look at the reviews at ArsTechnica, for instance at this one about Mac OS. The multipage review contains background information about the inner workings, some words about usability, differences with previous versions, information about performance, balanced and substantiated views about what should be improved and an informative conclusion. That is what I think should be considered a review.
This is not a review. It's just a rehash of some parts of the kde3.2 announcement enhanced with a few screenshots and personal comments.
1945? Won't take long then ;)
This weird comoving future visibility limit that is mentioned at the top of the map is explained in detail in the paper:
;)
[...] which shows how far a photon can travel in co-moving coordinates from the inflationary big bang to the infinite future.[...] This is the co-moving future visibility limit. No matter how long we wait, we will not be able to see further than this. This is surprisingly close.
Yeah, that's only 19,027Mpc
Maybe by pushing for upgrades only with Office and backend items they can leave 98 on the desktops and save themselves from companies going with a mass conversion to Linux?
;)
While Microsoft keeps pushing Office upgrades, I wonder how many corporations will notice the benefits of OpenOffice then
Your critisisme towards Linux is waaay too general
Linux per se is free of charge. Some companies might charge for their support, manuals or precompiled binaries. But that doesn't really change the fact that Linux itself free.