I'm still waiting for the earth shattering kaboom. There was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom. Especially if it tests a rock with illudium Q-36 in it.
Thanks. You're right, I wasn't precise in what "urtext" (original text) means. Urtext edition sheetmusic has been cleaned up from the mess the composer jotted down, but essentially left unchanged.
It's an "edition", meaning that it has been converted into clean notation, thus changed from the original scrawl. But, it's not an "edition", meaning that there are no alterations or additions to the music. The original poster was clearly aiming at the second meaning.
I've never had a problem with using urtext sheet music; by definition, untouched by an editor. Your girlfriend should have no problem with students that show up with urtext copies, many of which are freely available on the internet. She is a teacher, so should help them to interpret the piece which is played, not play along with the interpretation of some editor. Besides, interpretation can be a very subjective thing; I've often disagreed with edited music and the changes they've made to the original piece. Then again, I've been known to disagree with the original composer, preferring to play dynamics in my own way, or to go with a staccato feel, rather than the legato that's marked on the music, or change a dozen other possible things you can when playing music.
In that way, editing music is very much different to editing a book. You can't play around with written passages the way you can with music. Music is much more open to interpretation and change. It's why it is so fascinating listening to different performers play the same piece of music, and not so interesting listening to the same prose read by different people.
I run Debian Testing on my work PC, and never had any issues with it, so I agree that it's quite stable. I've even selectively installed some experimental packages (i.e a more recent version of iceweasel), and it all works flawlessly.
If you're sick of the SysV init system, Debian does have systemd available for use. There are a few issues with it, but they're pretty well documented at http://wiki.debian.org/systemd . I like the SysV system myself, but I'm going to dabble with systemd, just to see how well it starts services in parallel.
You can stop Debian services from auto-starting after upgrade or install. It's not pretty or intuitive, but it does the job. Create a file called/usr/sbin/policy-rc.d, and put in the line "exit 101". Make it executable. Your deb install scripts will not automatically restart services now. This will prevent use of the invoke-rc.d command, which the install scripts use to restart services.
I've never seen Debian re-enable a service that has been removed from the relevant rc.d directory. Very strange! A possible workaround would be to immediately disable the service via the rc.local script, but that's a bit of a hack. The proper solution would be to work with the process that is re-enabling dhcpd. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would be responsible for this, though.
The Debian package maintainers are a decent bunch. I've generally had good experiences with dealing with them. Should probably look at maintaining a package myself, just to contribute back to the system.
I've just installed iceweasel from the "experimental" pool. It's the latest version, and works perfectly. If you set up the Default-Release option in apt, you can just add the experimental pool to the sources list, and pick and choose what packages you want to install from there. Very convenient.
Due to Torvalds active refusal to establish stable APIs, the Linux kernel is more nimble and able to adapt to issues and changes in the hardware horizon. It can also be compiled using a number of different compilers, and with a huge number of compiler and kernel options. This would not be possible with a static binary API. I like it, and think that Linus has made a good choice.
In the long term, an active API will end up being more efficient and less crufty. For guaranteed support, all it takes is the hardware driver to be included with the kernel source, or the developer of the driver to manage possible changes when a new kernel is released. I can say for certain that it takes _much_ less effort to change code, than it does to create it in the first place. Quality code base assumed.
From a business standpoint, if you want to sell something to a market, you go with what is used by that market. For the alternative OS desktop crowd, you would not choose BSD, regardless of whether they have a stable binary API or not. The choice would be Fedora, Ubuntu, or Suse, because they have crafted their systems for general desktop usage, and because they have that market.
X.org has fixed this up quite significantly in the last few years. For the most part, display and input devices are detected automatically, and it all "just works". All without an xorg.conf file. It's actually quite nice, and makes getting X to work in Debian a breeze.
Even still, if you want a slick desktop interface in Debian, you're going to have to work at it. It's not designed as a convenient desktop system. I use it, but then again, I like to tweak everything to my liking, and configure things from the terminal. Fedora or Ubuntu are definitely much better in this regard. Ubuntu would be my preference, since I think the deb packaging system is the best thing since raisin toast.
Tiny market segment? Well, that depends on whether you think more than 10 million GPUs is tiny. It could actually be in their best interest to open the programming specs for their hardware. Stranger things have happened.
Let's examine the numbers. Real world numbers, not your sarcastic take on them.
Look at the latest Humble Bundle. They have a pie chart breakdown of Windows / Mac / Linux user purchases. Peeking into the html source, you'll discover that the percentage of Linux purchases was 10.14% .
Total purchases was 598,995. Therefore the number of Linux users _purchasing_ the Humble Bundle is 60,738.
Furthermore, look at the average price paid by Linux users. Note that it is significantly higher than the Windows average, and comfortably beats the Mac average. Combining this average number with the number calculated above, puts the total amount paid by Linux users as $759,225.
That is very compelling for software devs. It shows that there are Linux gamers out there, plenty of them, and they're willing to pay.
I use the terminal for developing and email (and "etc"). It certainly cuts it for me. It may not have a fancy look to it, but it's actually very functional and also very fast. Also, it's very nice not to move from keyboard to mouse, just to click on a few GUI elements, and then back to keyboard again.
Granted, it's not for everyone, but I just wanted to show a little support for the humble terminal. It definitely makes my life easier. Plus, you look like a hacker when you use the terminal often. At least, that's the feedback I get from the project managers at work. Not that I'm into it because of the appearance.;)
I've been around here longer than you have, sonny jim.
Nice work on the SS visit, although they were probably visiting because of your hydroponic setup, rather than being expletive police. Care to link to the post? You've been pretty tame over the last month.
Most gratuitous use of the word "fuck" in a serious Slashdot post.
Re:How RedHat's Linux Can Defeat Micr$oft's Windoz
on
Linux 3.4 Released
·
· Score: 0
Amusing troll. It would have been more subtle if you didn't reveal your knowledge of kill signals and shell names. You should have tried to call "bash" something like "clash" or "smash".
What you've said is very true. To be fair, though, you are acting somewhat ironically by gravely insulting the person whom you accuse of being clueless about human psychology.
OK, you believe that we can predict the behaviour of the climate. That's fine, but please give more information to prove your point. At the moment, all I see is that you're claiming belief as fact.
Ahh, the logic police. Oxdas has a very good point, and your quoted fallacy is only valid in a situation where you're trying to compromise between a truth and a lie. Problem is, what is the truth? We don't know what it is, as far as climate change is concerned. Nobody knows, as far as I can tell, because we still can't predict the behaviour of the We may indeed be in a human induced change of climate, or we may possibly be in a natural cycle that coincidently matches human activity. I'm personally of the belief that we are certainly changing our climate, but not to the levels predicted by some. It's a belief. I have no proof, other than past climate models and predictions turning out to be inaccurate, which is an indication that others are wrong, not that I'm right.
Without definitive proof, both sides of the argument have injected a certain amount of belief into their hypotheses. Belief is the essential ingredient of any religion. Thus, both sides are certainly acting religiously, and from observation, rather zealously. The statement from oxdas stands.
The receiver has paid for the product via subscription fees, and receives the product, albeit via a slightly more unconventional route. Content providers have been suitably reimbursed for their effort. This situation is more subtle than you think, and certainly doesn't deserve a blatant "Yes it does" answer.
Many dwellings in Coober Pedy are underground. Very practical, considering the temperatures it can reach outside. Much more efficient than using air conditioning to cope with the higher temperatures. Some of the dwelling interiors look very nice indeed! Yes, some do look like holes; I know, what did I expect. There's even an underground church and underground hotel. All in all, looks like a very pleasant way to live.
Sure, it makes the presentation more interesting, but the consequence is that the attendees end up learning nothing from your presentation material. Sort of defeats the purpose of the presentation.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still waiting for the earth shattering kaboom. There was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom. Especially if it tests a rock with illudium Q-36 in it.
Thanks. You're right, I wasn't precise in what "urtext" (original text) means. Urtext edition sheetmusic has been cleaned up from the mess the composer jotted down, but essentially left unchanged.
It's an "edition", meaning that it has been converted into clean notation, thus changed from the original scrawl. But, it's not an "edition", meaning that there are no alterations or additions to the music. The original poster was clearly aiming at the second meaning.
I've never had a problem with using urtext sheet music; by definition, untouched by an editor. Your girlfriend should have no problem with students that show up with urtext copies, many of which are freely available on the internet. She is a teacher, so should help them to interpret the piece which is played, not play along with the interpretation of some editor. Besides, interpretation can be a very subjective thing; I've often disagreed with edited music and the changes they've made to the original piece. Then again, I've been known to disagree with the original composer, preferring to play dynamics in my own way, or to go with a staccato feel, rather than the legato that's marked on the music, or change a dozen other possible things you can when playing music.
In that way, editing music is very much different to editing a book. You can't play around with written passages the way you can with music. Music is much more open to interpretation and change. It's why it is so fascinating listening to different performers play the same piece of music, and not so interesting listening to the same prose read by different people.
I run Debian Testing on my work PC, and never had any issues with it, so I agree that it's quite stable. I've even selectively installed some experimental packages (i.e a more recent version of iceweasel), and it all works flawlessly.
If you're sick of the SysV init system, Debian does have systemd available for use. There are a few issues with it, but they're pretty well documented at http://wiki.debian.org/systemd . I like the SysV system myself, but I'm going to dabble with systemd, just to see how well it starts services in parallel.
You can stop Debian services from auto-starting after upgrade or install. It's not pretty or intuitive, but it does the job. Create a file called /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d, and put in the line "exit 101". Make it executable. Your deb install scripts will not automatically restart services now. This will prevent use of the invoke-rc.d command, which the install scripts use to restart services.
I've never seen Debian re-enable a service that has been removed from the relevant rc.d directory. Very strange! A possible workaround would be to immediately disable the service via the rc.local script, but that's a bit of a hack. The proper solution would be to work with the process that is re-enabling dhcpd. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would be responsible for this, though.
The Debian package maintainers are a decent bunch. I've generally had good experiences with dealing with them. Should probably look at maintaining a package myself, just to contribute back to the system.
The US has almost double the GDP per capita of Greece. They're probably happy enough.
Although, if you want officially measured happiness, there's only one country that does that: Bhutan.
Gnarly?
I've just installed iceweasel from the "experimental" pool. It's the latest version, and works perfectly. If you set up the Default-Release option in apt, you can just add the experimental pool to the sources list, and pick and choose what packages you want to install from there. Very convenient.
Due to Torvalds active refusal to establish stable APIs, the Linux kernel is more nimble and able to adapt to issues and changes in the hardware horizon. It can also be compiled using a number of different compilers, and with a huge number of compiler and kernel options. This would not be possible with a static binary API. I like it, and think that Linus has made a good choice.
In the long term, an active API will end up being more efficient and less crufty. For guaranteed support, all it takes is the hardware driver to be included with the kernel source, or the developer of the driver to manage possible changes when a new kernel is released. I can say for certain that it takes _much_ less effort to change code, than it does to create it in the first place. Quality code base assumed.
From a business standpoint, if you want to sell something to a market, you go with what is used by that market. For the alternative OS desktop crowd, you would not choose BSD, regardless of whether they have a stable binary API or not. The choice would be Fedora, Ubuntu, or Suse, because they have crafted their systems for general desktop usage, and because they have that market.
X.org has fixed this up quite significantly in the last few years. For the most part, display and input devices are detected automatically, and it all "just works". All without an xorg.conf file. It's actually quite nice, and makes getting X to work in Debian a breeze.
Even still, if you want a slick desktop interface in Debian, you're going to have to work at it. It's not designed as a convenient desktop system. I use it, but then again, I like to tweak everything to my liking, and configure things from the terminal. Fedora or Ubuntu are definitely much better in this regard. Ubuntu would be my preference, since I think the deb packaging system is the best thing since raisin toast.
Tiny market segment? Well, that depends on whether you think more than 10 million GPUs is tiny. It could actually be in their best interest to open the programming specs for their hardware. Stranger things have happened.
Let's examine the numbers. Real world numbers, not your sarcastic take on them.
Look at the latest Humble Bundle. They have a pie chart breakdown of Windows / Mac / Linux user purchases. Peeking into the html source, you'll discover that the percentage of Linux purchases was 10.14% .
Total purchases was 598,995. Therefore the number of Linux users _purchasing_ the Humble Bundle is 60,738.
Furthermore, look at the average price paid by Linux users. Note that it is significantly higher than the Windows average, and comfortably beats the Mac average. Combining this average number with the number calculated above, puts the total amount paid by Linux users as $759,225.
That is very compelling for software devs. It shows that there are Linux gamers out there, plenty of them, and they're willing to pay.
I use the terminal for developing and email (and "etc"). It certainly cuts it for me. It may not have a fancy look to it, but it's actually very functional and also very fast. Also, it's very nice not to move from keyboard to mouse, just to click on a few GUI elements, and then back to keyboard again.
Granted, it's not for everyone, but I just wanted to show a little support for the humble terminal. It definitely makes my life easier. Plus, you look like a hacker when you use the terminal often. At least, that's the feedback I get from the project managers at work. Not that I'm into it because of the appearance. ;)
The original word worked well enough for us to understand his point. Live a little. Try using a different word, aujourd'hui.
I've been around here longer than you have, sonny jim.
Nice work on the SS visit, although they were probably visiting because of your hydroponic setup, rather than being expletive police. Care to link to the post? You've been pretty tame over the last month.
Achievement Unlocked
Most gratuitous use of the word "fuck" in a serious Slashdot post.
Amusing troll. It would have been more subtle if you didn't reveal your knowledge of kill signals and shell names. You should have tried to call "bash" something like "clash" or "smash".
What you've said is very true. To be fair, though, you are acting somewhat ironically by gravely insulting the person whom you accuse of being clueless about human psychology.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
OK, you believe that we can predict the behaviour of the climate. That's fine, but please give more information to prove your point. At the moment, all I see is that you're claiming belief as fact.
As for my argument, that we cannot consistently predict climate behaviour, this is supported by this information:
http://drtimball.com/2011/ipcc-predictions-scenarios-always-wrong-therefore-science-wrong/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-multi-decadal-regional-climate-predictions-to-by-of-value-to-the-impacts-communities/
http://www.rosettatranslation.com/media/catastrophic-climate-change-or-maybe-not/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/
And, for the argument, I'm not denying that climate change is happening. I believe it is. I'm just not convinced we can accurately predict it.
... we still can't predict the behaviour of the climate.
There, that fixes my sentence.
Ahh, the logic police. Oxdas has a very good point, and your quoted fallacy is only valid in a situation where you're trying to compromise between a truth and a lie. Problem is, what is the truth? We don't know what it is, as far as climate change is concerned. Nobody knows, as far as I can tell, because we still can't predict the behaviour of the We may indeed be in a human induced change of climate, or we may possibly be in a natural cycle that coincidently matches human activity. I'm personally of the belief that we are certainly changing our climate, but not to the levels predicted by some. It's a belief. I have no proof, other than past climate models and predictions turning out to be inaccurate, which is an indication that others are wrong, not that I'm right.
Without definitive proof, both sides of the argument have injected a certain amount of belief into their hypotheses. Belief is the essential ingredient of any religion. Thus, both sides are certainly acting religiously, and from observation, rather zealously. The statement from oxdas stands.
Not quite as much distrust and suspicion as they have regarding "bankers".
And yet, no, it doesn't.
The receiver has paid for the product via subscription fees, and receives the product, albeit via a slightly more unconventional route. Content providers have been suitably reimbursed for their effort. This situation is more subtle than you think, and certainly doesn't deserve a blatant "Yes it does" answer.
You are correct. Try using the following instead:
iptables -I OUTPUT -p tcp -d localhost --dport 8022 -m owner ! --uuid-owner me -j REJECT
Obviously change the owner name to whatever login name you use.
Many dwellings in Coober Pedy are underground. Very practical, considering the temperatures it can reach outside. Much more efficient than using air conditioning to cope with the higher temperatures. Some of the dwelling interiors look very nice indeed! Yes, some do look like holes; I know, what did I expect. There's even an underground church and underground hotel. All in all, looks like a very pleasant way to live.
Sure, it makes the presentation more interesting, but the consequence is that the attendees end up learning nothing from your presentation material. Sort of defeats the purpose of the presentation.