Is it just me, or have there have been an awful lot of "Just switch to Windows so you can use Windows Update! It's so easy to upgrade!" and "Upgrading Windows is easy! You just have to download the latest service pack!" posts lately? Methinks Microsoft is planting people (again).
Nevermind that Mozilla took a whopping 3 minutes to install once I had downloaded it, and required nothing more from me than to make a new directory and unpack the tarball. I kept waiting for the part where it would be hard to install (all the Windows fanboys keep telling me installing anything on Linux is next to impossible), but it never came. Too bad about the DHTML bug, though.
The whole 10-10-220 thing is best for long distance, and then only when you expect to be talking for longer than 20 minutes. Obviously you wouldn't use it for local calls, which are free.
Really? I used to get dragged out to a lot of fabric stores with my mother when I was a little kid, and they all used either a yardstick, measuring tape, or one of those big white measuring boards.
Originally the yard was based on the length from the tip of the king's nose to the end of his index finger. Nobody actually measures things that way anymore, though, because we have an official yard length which doesn't change (it's locked away at NIST, I believe). No one is going to cheat you (although if you suspect that a store is using incorrect measurements, whether on purpose or not, give your state's Department of Weights and Measures a call).
But the fact that the yard is close to the length between the tip of the nose and the end of the index finger for most people makes it easier in situations where you don't have any other way to measure, such as your yardstick getting lost.
I think he may have meant $180,000. IIRC I read somewhere that the PDP-1 cost $100,000 and the size of a refrigerator, yet for the time was dirt cheap and incredibly small.
I actually have an emulator for a PDP-11 around here somewhere (don't remember if it's still on disk or on a backup CD-R in the closet). SCO used to offer an "Ancient Unix" license, where you could get it and then download old versions of Unix (actual Unix, not BSD or Linux or whatever). I used to run Unix on it (not sure what version it was anymore, probably V or VII) just for kicks.
Actually, IBM had nothing to do with the "a word is 2 bytes" thing. That was Intel, because the 8086, 8088, 186, and 286 all had a word that was 2 bytes long. But few people actually still go by the notion that a word is 2 bytes long, since even Intel processors now use a word size of 4 bytes (they have since the 386).
Let me ask a slightly different question. Obviously there are great variations in the skulls of various pre-humans. Does that give any evidence that the brains were very different or is it possible that the braincase was just a different shape, but the brains were more or less the same? My gut feeling is that the latter is the most likely, and as I said above, it's physical changes that allowed the brain to be used more effectively that gave us the big advantage.
The Neanderthals were probably a little bit less smart than Cro-magnons or Homo Sapiens, judging by the fact that surviving tools that they made are less complex. It is very possible (and probably likely) that small changes in the Homo Sapien throat and jaw structure, accompanied with small changes in brain structure, resulted in a big difference. It isn't the sheer size of the brain that matters, but proportions: the bigger the brain in proportion to the body, the smarter the animal usually is. This is because, by increasing the brain-to-body-size ratio, there would be more brain percentage for things besides motor function, involuntary function, etc., such as thinking. If you look at all the "smart" animals, such as gorillas, dolphins, etc., you'll find that their brains are very large, proportionally speaking.
The ability to make complex vocalizations isn't just a brain thing. The Neanderthals may not have been as physically capable as modern humans in the vocalization department.
Of course, a large part of it DOES have to do with how much of a species' brain is devoted to vocalizing. But even if you were somehow able to put a human brain in a dog and keep it alive, it wouldn't be able to talk.
On the issue of sentience: Neanderthals were almost certainly self-aware. Many species of primate besides homo sapiens are self aware, such as gorillas and orangutans. We primates don't hold the monopoly on self-awareness, either; dolphins also seem to posess this quality (and possibly other species, I'm not sure).
Why do we not see the most rudimentary math slowly improve over time as the intellect of the species leading up to homo sapiens improved?
Because the species leading up to homo sapiens almost certainly did not have mathematics.
Much of modern mathematics was developed by the great civilizations such as the Greeks, Romans, et al. That is why there are a lot of Greek symbols in mathematics, and why we have things with names such as the Pythagorean Theorem (named after Pythagoras).
A civilization must grow beyond the point where the sole concern is mere survival before abstract concepts such as mathematics and things like written language and science can develop. Why do you think the tribes living in the jungles of Africa haven't developed advanced mathematics or science? Because they have to spend the majority of their time just trying to stay alive.
Why do we not see long periods of a more primitive written language? While it is certainly true that there would have been many primitive languages in the history of the world, most of them were probably purely spoken languages. We can deduce this becuase most of the primitive languages that are still around have no written form. IIRC, the barbarians who brought the western Roman empire to an end had no written language.
That is why you do not see long periods of a more primitive written language. English didn't have a written form until a long time after it was "invented". Languages need to reach a certain level before transitioning into written form: both the language and the people speaking it need to become sophisticated and complex enough to make it worth writing things down in the first place.
IIRC, this was the theory at the time the book was written. Somebody examined the brain casing of the T-Rex and, after comparing it to the brain casings of other animals, came to the conclusion that the T-Rex could only see movement, like many modern predators.
I'm hearing a lot of "But what about vaporware? What if I donate money and the software is never finished?" That isn't what the developers are asking you to do.
From the article, In short, Authors (the programmers of the software) first publish their work under a Ransom License (a special proprietary license). There exists the stipulation that the code will be automatically freed to a set Open Source License ([OSI]/[FSF]-approved or the public domain) once a set amount of funds have been collected from Contributors (satisfied users, grateful corporate customers, or distributors/resellers) or a set amount of time passes, whichever comes first. You can read details of the complete step-by-step process.
So, basically: 1)Write software. 2)Release software, but not source code (aka freeware). 3)Request donations, tell people that once you reach $X you'll release the source code under an open license such as the GPL or donate it to the public domain. 4)Once a certain amount of time has passed, or you've reached your goal of $X in donations, release the software's source code.
Actually, they're probably afraid that their competitors will undercut them, and they'll either lose business or have to cut their own prices again, which will both have the same effect.
By everybody all releasing their sale prices on or around the same date, your competitors won't have the chance to undercut you.
But then doesn't that effectively eliminate pro bono work?
Re:CMYK, and GIMP UI vs. drop-down menus
on
Film Gimp
·
· Score: 1
a lot of the work done for Film Gimp will likely end up rolled back into Gimp
Probably not. I've been following the mailing lists for a few months now, and it doesn't seem likely to happen. Originally the whole point of doing Film Gimp was to eventually merge the changes back in, but The Gimp's steering committee vetoed that decision ages ago. Robin Rowe (who is Film Gimp's head cheerleader and project coordinator) has some (overly optimistic, and probably a bit naive) ideas about bringing Film Gimp up to the Gimp 1.2.3 codebase, but there have been so many changes that most people a)don't think it will be possible, and b)think it will be a wast of time. It sounds like Rythm & Hues (and ImageWorks) want to move the core of Film Gimp entirely over to floating-point for the greater dynamic range (helpful when working with film, but practically required for HDR images), so I don't think Robin Rowe will get his way without another fork.
Hopefully, however, Robin will realize that bringing the Film Gimp codebase up to the latest Gimp codebase really doesn't matter, and there won't be another fork.
Re:Two studios are listed
on
Film Gimp
·
· Score: 1
1)Not everything they did was in line with what The Gimp project wanted. Film Gimp is aimed at touching up frames from motion pictures, The Gimp is more aimed at web graphics and having lots of "cool" filters and plug-ins.
2)The code was awfully buggy. Film Gimp is pretty stable now, but unfortunately the programmers at Ryth & Hues were too busy doing other things to be able to fix bugs for a long time.
Re:Two studios are listed
on
Film Gimp
·
· Score: 2
Yes, initially Silicon Grail and Rythm & Hues were the only sponsors. Then Silicon Grail dropped out. However, some time later (a few months ago), it was discovered that while Rythm & Hues hadn't really done much with Film Gimp in a while, ImageWorks had been improving it on their own. Their changes and improvements were merged into the Film Gimp codebase a few months ago, and now Sam Richards, an ImageWorks programmer, is one of the lead developers, and lots of people from various places (some work for VFX comanies, some don't) contribute code.
Rythm & Hues are still involved, but now they aren't the only ones.
That article is has many inaccuracies (Film Gimp has nothing to do with editing), the most major is the (incorrect) assumption that Film Gimp is being used by movie studios. This is just plain wrong. Film Gimp is being used by visual FX companies. While it may be true that they do VFX for films made by the movie studios, that is where the connection ends.
And for all the, "But we all hate the MPAA, right?" people: not everyone who is involved in the making of a movie is a corporate suit. Hate the MPAA all you want, but don't take it out on the artists and craftsmen/women who actually make the movie, including the VFX artists.
Finally, as to why they are using open-source: it costs less. Most studios have at least one in-house programmer. So instead of paying thousands (or even tens of thousands) of dollars for some proprietary program, why not just have one or two of your programmers modify some open-source apps to suit your own needs? Rythm & Hues and ImageWorks had (and continue to have) the courtesy to release their modifications to Film Gimp to the public (they weren't distributing the modifications, so they didn't have to release the source code).
You don't need the -v option. It stands for "verbose", which is why tar prints all that stuff on the screen.If you want to know what's in the archive, use -ztf (the key here is the -t option, which makes tar tell you what's in the file).
If you could actually read a man page, you'd know what the other options do. To make your life easy:
-z tells tar that the file you are trying to untar is compressed
-x tells tar that you are trying to untar the file, rather than add more files to it
-f tells tar that the archive should come from a file, rather than tape.
So tar -zxf file.tar.gz means that tar should first run gunzip on file.tar.gz, then extract the files from file.tar instead of the tape drive.
As for changing tar: it is still used by many people for backing up to tape. Is it really that hard to remember the -zxf ? Also, I don't think that gzip should be integrated with tar because not all tar archives are compressed with gzip. Ever see a.tar.Z file? They seem to be very common on Irix, and aren't compressed with gzip AFAIK.
As for the use of a command line being unprofessional: no. The Unix command line is almost infinitely more powerful than the DOS command line. I like being able to do anything from the command line. I can't tell you how many times being able to remotely log into a machine to fix something and fix it from the command line (as opposed to being required to use a GUI for configuration) has saved my ass. You don't need to use the command line on a regular basis, though. Aside from when I'm programming or logged into one of my machines remotely, I don't use the command line as often as I thought I'd have to when I first switched all my machines at home to various *nixes. Unfortunately, many people migrate from Windows thinking Linux will be "like Windows, only better" or some miracle cure for all their computing woes. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, having bazillions of certifications doesn't make you computer knowledgeable, just ask anybody with an MCSE;-) I hate to tell you this, but your A+ certification means zip to anyone outside of the PC repair world, except for those looking to get their MCSE afterwards.
The thing I am constantly seeing when people switch to Linux or some other *nix who've been using DOS or Windows for a long time (indeed, it was a problem I suffered from when I was learning FreeBSD, the first *nix I was ever exposed to) is that their DOS and Windows knowledge actually hinders them to a certain degree. You're just going to have to deal with the fact that a lot of your DOS and Windows knowledge just doesn't apply in the *nix world, so "unlearn" it lest it hinder you. Unix "grew up" separately from Microsoft OSes, and the "Unix Way" of doing things, while sometimes very different from the "Windows Way", can actually make sense and be helpful if you take the time and effort to learn WHY it's done that way.
I would be interested in knowing why you switched to Linux, why you think it is targetted at the general public (hint: it isn't, it's targetted at people who actually know how to use their computers and aren't afraid to learn new things), and what distribution you're using.
Since Mozilla is a mixture of Mosaic and Godzilla IIRC (hence the logo), Phoenix should change its name to some permutation or combination of Gecko (the rendering engine used in Phoenix and Mozilla) and Mothra (like Gozilla, Mothra is an icon of classic Japanese monster movies):
The light issue does not become any less of a problem when shooting digital video. You would still be exposing the image capture device (the CCD in this case) to half the amount of light that you'd have when shooting at 24fps, and you'd still get all the problems that go along with it.
And don't expect everybody to just go, "Hey, let's a)switch over to digital video, and b)shoot at 48fps." Not all filmmakers are gung-ho about digital video, mostly because of the inherent differences between the two formats (the same reasons many still photographers still do it the "old fashioned" way, developing and printing their film by themselves using chemicals and photopaper instead of Photoshop and a printer).
And, because it would cut the amount of light hitting the image capture device (whether film or a CCD), shooting at 48fps would throw the art of cinematography backwards by several decades. Up until about 25 years ago, film stocks were just so slow that cinematographers had no choice but to throw tons of light on a scene, regardless of the mood they were trying to create, and often even when shooting outdoors in sunny conditions. Thankfully, film stocks got faster, and now filmmakers don't have to carry gigantic lights with them wherever they go. Although some cinematographers still use the huge lamps that give off tons of light (mostly when they are shooting at night and have to light up an entire area, and to ensure the lights aren't visible, they can only use a few, so they have to be big), at least he or she now has a choice of whether or not to use them. By shooting at 48fps instead of 24, because the film is only getting exposed to light for half as long, you would double the amount of light that needs to reach it, which means that large lamps capable of giving of shitloads of light would be a requirement again.
The problem with shooting at 48fps as opposed to 24fps is that you cut the amount of light hitting the film in half. This means you need brighter light sources, or you need to open up the aperture more. In many cases this is just not possible (an overcast day, etc.).
Never mind that the cost of the actual film and processing would double.
People who complain about flicker and suchsort when going to see a movie are probably watching the movie in a shitty theater with a substandard projector. The first time I saw Spider-man it looked flawless. I saw it a mere 3 days later, at a different theater, and there were all kinds of problems (wobbling, a bit of flicker, etc.).
I hate to burst your bubble, but most Americans do not own guns. Of the ones that do, most keep theirs locked away, and almost never carry them in public (unless going to a shooting range). In all my life, I have seen exactly 2 people (who weren't police) carrying a gun in a public, non-gun related place.
And while Americans don't like racism, we also don't like limiting someone's right to speak their mind and have their own oppinions. So as much as we despise the KKK and their ilk, there's little we can do about silencing them without abolishing freedom of speech. Try as we might to educate them about people of other races and how they aren't the worthless bunch of scum racists make them out to be, some people refuse to accept this, and always will.
...is another book by Kurt Wall (along with a few other people). It covers the same topics as Linux Programming by Example, and a good deal more. In fact, because one of Linux Programming Unleashed's authors worked on both books (Kurt Wall), several of the sections in Linux Programming by Example were word for word copies of the same section in Linux Programming Unleashed.
This isn't meant to bash the author. Linux Programming by Example is a very good book for people who know how to program in C, but have never done it for Linux before. I consider it to be the "lite" version of Linux Programming Unleashed. Linux Programming Unleashed contains almost the same information as Linux Programming by Example, in the same accessible, easy-to-understand presentation, plus a good deal more (like how to write man pages for your programs).
If it comes down to whether to buy one or the other, if you can afford Linux Programming Unleashed ($50, whereas Linux Programming by Example is around $30) buy that. If not, go ahead and get Linux Programming by Example.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me, or have there have been an awful lot of "Just switch to Windows so you can use Windows Update! It's so easy to upgrade!" and "Upgrading Windows is easy! You just have to download the latest service pack!" posts lately? Methinks Microsoft is planting people (again).
Nevermind that Mozilla took a whopping 3 minutes to install once I had downloaded it, and required nothing more from me than to make a new directory and unpack the tarball. I kept waiting for the part where it would be hard to install (all the Windows fanboys keep telling me installing anything on Linux is next to impossible), but it never came. Too bad about the DHTML bug, though.
The whole 10-10-220 thing is best for long distance, and then only when you expect to be talking for longer than 20 minutes. Obviously you wouldn't use it for local calls, which are free.
I don't think he meant "Hey, I just got fired! I'll sabotage the satellite!"
Rather, I think a "Oh shit, our mega-expensive satellite is now space junk, fire some people to make up for the loss."
Really? I used to get dragged out to a lot of fabric stores with my mother when I was a little kid, and they all used either a yardstick, measuring tape, or one of those big white measuring boards.
Originally the yard was based on the length from the tip of the king's nose to the end of his index finger. Nobody actually measures things that way anymore, though, because we have an official yard length which doesn't change (it's locked away at NIST, I believe). No one is going to cheat you (although if you suspect that a store is using incorrect measurements, whether on purpose or not, give your state's Department of Weights and Measures a call).
But the fact that the yard is close to the length between the tip of the nose and the end of the index finger for most people makes it easier in situations where you don't have any other way to measure, such as your yardstick getting lost.
I think he may have meant $180,000. IIRC I read somewhere that the PDP-1 cost $100,000 and the size of a refrigerator, yet for the time was dirt cheap and incredibly small.
I actually have an emulator for a PDP-11 around here somewhere (don't remember if it's still on disk or on a backup CD-R in the closet). SCO used to offer an "Ancient Unix" license, where you could get it and then download old versions of Unix (actual Unix, not BSD or Linux or whatever). I used to run Unix on it (not sure what version it was anymore, probably V or VII) just for kicks.
Actually, IBM had nothing to do with the "a word is 2 bytes" thing. That was Intel, because the 8086, 8088, 186, and 286 all had a word that was 2 bytes long. But few people actually still go by the notion that a word is 2 bytes long, since even Intel processors now use a word size of 4 bytes (they have since the 386).
You might want to read this.
Let me ask a slightly different question. Obviously there are great variations in the skulls of various pre-humans. Does that give any evidence that the brains were very different or is it possible that the braincase was just a different shape, but the brains were more or less the same? My gut feeling is that the latter is the most likely, and as I said above, it's physical changes that allowed the brain to be used more effectively that gave us the big advantage.
The Neanderthals were probably a little bit less smart than Cro-magnons or Homo Sapiens, judging by the fact that surviving tools that they made are less complex. It is very possible (and probably likely) that small changes in the Homo Sapien throat and jaw structure, accompanied with small changes in brain structure, resulted in a big difference. It isn't the sheer size of the brain that matters, but proportions: the bigger the brain in proportion to the body, the smarter the animal usually is. This is because, by increasing the brain-to-body-size ratio, there would be more brain percentage for things besides motor function, involuntary function, etc., such as thinking. If you look at all the "smart" animals, such as gorillas, dolphins, etc., you'll find that their brains are very large, proportionally speaking.
The ability to make complex vocalizations isn't just a brain thing. The Neanderthals may not have been as physically capable as modern humans in the vocalization department.
Of course, a large part of it DOES have to do with how much of a species' brain is devoted to vocalizing. But even if you were somehow able to put a human brain in a dog and keep it alive, it wouldn't be able to talk.
On the issue of sentience: Neanderthals were almost certainly self-aware. Many species of primate besides homo sapiens are self aware, such as gorillas and orangutans. We primates don't hold the monopoly on self-awareness, either; dolphins also seem to posess this quality (and possibly other species, I'm not sure).
Why do we not see the most rudimentary math slowly improve over time as the intellect of the species leading up to homo sapiens improved?
.
Because the species leading up to homo sapiens almost certainly did not have mathematics
Much of modern mathematics was developed by the great civilizations such as the Greeks, Romans, et al. That is why there are a lot of Greek symbols in mathematics, and why we have things with names such as the Pythagorean Theorem (named after Pythagoras).
A civilization must grow beyond the point where the sole concern is mere survival before abstract concepts such as mathematics and things like written language and science can develop. Why do you think the tribes living in the jungles of Africa haven't developed advanced mathematics or science? Because they have to spend the majority of their time just trying to stay alive.
Why do we not see long periods of a more primitive written language?
While it is certainly true that there would have been many primitive languages in the history of the world, most of them were probably purely spoken languages. We can deduce this becuase most of the primitive languages that are still around have no written form. IIRC, the barbarians who brought the western Roman empire to an end had no written language.
That is why you do not see long periods of a more primitive written language. English didn't have a written form until a long time after it was "invented". Languages need to reach a certain level before transitioning into written form: both the language and the people speaking it need to become sophisticated and complex enough to make it worth writing things down in the first place.
IIRC, this was the theory at the time the book was written. Somebody examined the brain casing of the T-Rex and, after comparing it to the brain casings of other animals, came to the conclusion that the T-Rex could only see movement, like many modern predators.
I'm hearing a lot of "But what about vaporware? What if I donate money and the software is never finished?" That isn't what the developers are asking you to do.
From the article,
In short, Authors (the programmers of the software) first publish their work under a Ransom License (a special proprietary license). There exists the stipulation that the code will be automatically freed to a set Open Source License ([OSI]/[FSF]-approved or the public domain) once a set amount of funds have been collected from Contributors (satisfied users, grateful corporate customers, or distributors/resellers) or a set amount of time passes, whichever comes first. You can read details of the complete step-by-step process.
So, basically:
1)Write software.
2)Release software, but not source code (aka freeware).
3)Request donations, tell people that once you reach $X you'll release the source code under an open license such as the GPL or donate it to the public domain.
4)Once a certain amount of time has passed, or you've reached your goal of $X in donations, release the software's source code.
Actually, they're probably afraid that their competitors will undercut them, and they'll either lose business or have to cut their own prices again, which will both have the same effect.
By everybody all releasing their sale prices on or around the same date, your competitors won't have the chance to undercut you.
But then doesn't that effectively eliminate pro bono work?
a lot of the work done for Film Gimp will likely end up rolled back into Gimp
Probably not. I've been following the mailing lists for a few months now, and it doesn't seem likely to happen. Originally the whole point of doing Film Gimp was to eventually merge the changes back in, but The Gimp's steering committee vetoed that decision ages ago. Robin Rowe (who is Film Gimp's head cheerleader and project coordinator) has some (overly optimistic, and probably a bit naive) ideas about bringing Film Gimp up to the Gimp 1.2.3 codebase, but there have been so many changes that most people a)don't think it will be possible, and b)think it will be a wast of time. It sounds like Rythm & Hues (and ImageWorks) want to move the core of Film Gimp entirely over to floating-point for the greater dynamic range (helpful when working with film, but practically required for HDR images), so I don't think Robin Rowe will get his way without another fork.
Hopefully, however, Robin will realize that bringing the Film Gimp codebase up to the latest Gimp codebase really doesn't matter, and there won't be another fork.
1)Not everything they did was in line with what The Gimp project wanted. Film Gimp is aimed at touching up frames from motion pictures, The Gimp is more aimed at web graphics and having lots of "cool" filters and plug-ins.
2)The code was awfully buggy. Film Gimp is pretty stable now, but unfortunately the programmers at Ryth & Hues were too busy doing other things to be able to fix bugs for a long time.
Yes, initially Silicon Grail and Rythm & Hues were the only sponsors. Then Silicon Grail dropped out. However, some time later (a few months ago), it was discovered that while Rythm & Hues hadn't really done much with Film Gimp in a while, ImageWorks had been improving it on their own. Their changes and improvements were merged into the Film Gimp codebase a few months ago, and now Sam Richards, an ImageWorks programmer, is one of the lead developers, and lots of people from various places (some work for VFX comanies, some don't) contribute code.
Rythm & Hues are still involved, but now they aren't the only ones.
That article is has many inaccuracies (Film Gimp has nothing to do with editing), the most major is the (incorrect) assumption that Film Gimp is being used by movie studios. This is just plain wrong. Film Gimp is being used by visual FX companies. While it may be true that they do VFX for films made by the movie studios, that is where the connection ends.
And for all the, "But we all hate the MPAA, right?" people: not everyone who is involved in the making of a movie is a corporate suit. Hate the MPAA all you want, but don't take it out on the artists and craftsmen/women who actually make the movie, including the VFX artists.
Finally, as to why they are using open-source: it costs less. Most studios have at least one in-house programmer. So instead of paying thousands (or even tens of thousands) of dollars for some proprietary program, why not just have one or two of your programmers modify some open-source apps to suit your own needs? Rythm & Hues and ImageWorks had (and continue to have) the courtesy to release their modifications to Film Gimp to the public (they weren't distributing the modifications, so they didn't have to release the source code).
If you could actually read a man page, you'd know what the other options do. To make your life easy:
So tar -zxf file.tar.gz means that tar should first run gunzip on file.tar.gz, then extract the files from file.tar instead of the tape drive.
As for changing tar: it is still used by many people for backing up to tape. Is it really that hard to remember the -zxf ? Also, I don't think that gzip should be integrated with tar because not all tar archives are compressed with gzip. Ever see a
As for the use of a command line being unprofessional: no. The Unix command line is almost infinitely more powerful than the DOS command line. I like being able to do anything from the command line. I can't tell you how many times being able to remotely log into a machine to fix something and fix it from the command line (as opposed to being required to use a GUI for configuration) has saved my ass. You don't need to use the command line on a regular basis, though. Aside from when I'm programming or logged into one of my machines remotely, I don't use the command line as often as I thought I'd have to when I first switched all my machines at home to various *nixes. Unfortunately, many people migrate from Windows thinking Linux will be "like Windows, only better" or some miracle cure for all their computing woes. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, having bazillions of certifications doesn't make you computer knowledgeable, just ask anybody with an MCSE
The thing I am constantly seeing when people switch to Linux or some other *nix who've been using DOS or Windows for a long time (indeed, it was a problem I suffered from when I was learning FreeBSD, the first *nix I was ever exposed to) is that their DOS and Windows knowledge actually hinders them to a certain degree. You're just going to have to deal with the fact that a lot of your DOS and Windows knowledge just doesn't apply in the *nix world, so "unlearn" it lest it hinder you. Unix "grew up" separately from Microsoft OSes, and the "Unix Way" of doing things, while sometimes very different from the "Windows Way", can actually make sense and be helpful if you take the time and effort to learn WHY it's done that way.
I would be interested in knowing why you switched to Linux, why you think it is targetted at the general public (hint: it isn't, it's targetted at people who actually know how to use their computers and aren't afraid to learn new things), and what distribution you're using.
Since Mozilla is a mixture of Mosaic and Godzilla IIRC (hence the logo), Phoenix should change its name to some permutation or combination of Gecko (the rendering engine used in Phoenix and Mozilla) and Mothra (like Gozilla, Mothra is an icon of classic Japanese monster movies):
Gethra
Geckra
Mothro
Mothreck
Geckzillathra
etc.
The light issue does not become any less of a problem when shooting digital video. You would still be exposing the image capture device (the CCD in this case) to half the amount of light that you'd have when shooting at 24fps, and you'd still get all the problems that go along with it.
And don't expect everybody to just go, "Hey, let's a)switch over to digital video, and b)shoot at 48fps." Not all filmmakers are gung-ho about digital video, mostly because of the inherent differences between the two formats (the same reasons many still photographers still do it the "old fashioned" way, developing and printing their film by themselves using chemicals and photopaper instead of Photoshop and a printer).
And, because it would cut the amount of light hitting the image capture device (whether film or a CCD), shooting at 48fps would throw the art of cinematography backwards by several decades. Up until about 25 years ago, film stocks were just so slow that cinematographers had no choice but to throw tons of light on a scene, regardless of the mood they were trying to create, and often even when shooting outdoors in sunny conditions. Thankfully, film stocks got faster, and now filmmakers don't have to carry gigantic lights with them wherever they go. Although some cinematographers still use the huge lamps that give off tons of light (mostly when they are shooting at night and have to light up an entire area, and to ensure the lights aren't visible, they can only use a few, so they have to be big), at least he or she now has a choice of whether or not to use them. By shooting at 48fps instead of 24, because the film is only getting exposed to light for half as long, you would double the amount of light that needs to reach it, which means that large lamps capable of giving of shitloads of light would be a requirement again.
The problem with shooting at 48fps as opposed to 24fps is that you cut the amount of light hitting the film in half. This means you need brighter light sources, or you need to open up the aperture more. In many cases this is just not possible (an overcast day, etc.).
Never mind that the cost of the actual film and processing would double.
People who complain about flicker and suchsort when going to see a movie are probably watching the movie in a shitty theater with a substandard projector. The first time I saw Spider-man it looked flawless. I saw it a mere 3 days later, at a different theater, and there were all kinds of problems (wobbling, a bit of flicker, etc.).
I hate to burst your bubble, but most Americans do not own guns. Of the ones that do, most keep theirs locked away, and almost never carry them in public (unless going to a shooting range). In all my life, I have seen exactly 2 people (who weren't police) carrying a gun in a public, non-gun related place.
And while Americans don't like racism, we also don't like limiting someone's right to speak their mind and have their own oppinions. So as much as we despise the KKK and their ilk, there's little we can do about silencing them without abolishing freedom of speech. Try as we might to educate them about people of other races and how they aren't the worthless bunch of scum racists make them out to be, some people refuse to accept this, and always will.
...is another book by Kurt Wall (along with a few other people). It covers the same topics as Linux Programming by Example, and a good deal more. In fact, because one of Linux Programming Unleashed's authors worked on both books (Kurt Wall), several of the sections in Linux Programming by Example were word for word copies of the same section in Linux Programming Unleashed.
This isn't meant to bash the author. Linux Programming by Example is a very good book for people who know how to program in C, but have never done it for Linux before. I consider it to be the "lite" version of Linux Programming Unleashed. Linux Programming Unleashed contains almost the same information as Linux Programming by Example, in the same accessible, easy-to-understand presentation, plus a good deal more (like how to write man pages for your programs).
If it comes down to whether to buy one or the other, if you can afford Linux Programming Unleashed ($50, whereas Linux Programming by Example is around $30) buy that. If not, go ahead and get Linux Programming by Example.