Point one: Applications dont care about squeezing every bit of performance out of their code. Niether do you if you use STL, so why not use a language that is actually easy to use overall.
Yeah, because nobody actually cares about having a snappy, responsive GUI. Nobody cares about having their programs start up in less than 10 minutes. Trying to make programs that have good performance is SO ten years ago!
I also love the way you used Visual Basic, Delphi, and C# as your example of how quickly development should go. News flash: no matter what language you use, if it only took an hour to write your app, then your app probably isn't that good.
Point two: Applications care about features.
Yes, but adding extraneous features just leads to bloat. Just look at Emacs: 100+ megabytes for a goddamn text editor.
Point three: Applications care about getting it done. And the faster they better.
Ok, you say that the faster an application gets its work done the better, but just before that you said application performance isn't important. Is a certain someone contradicting himself? I think so.
Or did you mean application developers? If that's the case, you need to work on your communication skills.
Most applications are written in VB, Delphi, or Java these days, and.NET will quickly overtake them. Welcome to the real world.
What? While I won't deny that a lot of programs are written in those languages, the majority of applications are still written in C or C++. I can count the number of programs installed on my machine that are written in something other than C or C++ on one hand.
And not everybody is writing Windows apps. Even Windows developers laugh at kiddies who think Visual Basic is the answer to everything.
Knowing the way this country works, we'd probably land a person on Mars, the populace would "Ooh!" and "Aah!" for a few months, then lose interest. At which point, the unscrupulous members of Congress would whine, "Yeah, we beat those dirty gooks to Mars. But now that we've done it, why waste money by going back? Those damn scientists are just going to give whatever knowledge we acquire to the slopes and every other two-bit country anyway, so why not just spend some of their funding on some nice pork barrel that'll get us re-elected instead?" After which NASA's budget will shrivel, more Aegis carriers that the Navy doesn't want because they don't have enough personel to crew them will be built, and it'll be the same shit all over again.
At least, until the private sector catches up. That is, unless corporate interest wanes once the low-orbit version of the Concorde becomes a reality.
One does not need religion and orders from some higher power to think that killing people is wrong. Nor is morality a law (unfortunately, hardline conservatives often try to legislate morality anyway).
To me, someone with morals is someone who does not intentionally harm others, steal, is honest, cheat, etc. I assume that most people agree. The only time religion factors into this is when a religion has a similar moral code, and makes that moral code part of their religious law. Regardless, morality can exist without religion.
Someone with the desire to kill others will still do it, religion or not.
No, people without religion think that killing is wrong because they recognize that life is special. They know that a species that goes around killing each other instead of working together is one that is less likely to succeed. They also know that they themselves would not like to be killed, and can extend this to assume that other people don't want to be killed either.
If your kids are young enough for you to worry about them seeing porn, then they probably aren't old enough to drive, in which case you or someone else is probably taking them there.
So why aren't you doing your job as a parent and either a)watching them when you go, or b)only letting them go with someone you trust enough to watch them?
The libraries should oppose all forms of censorship. I don't really care if it gets some parent's or conservative's panties in a twist, censorship is censorship. If you're so worried about your kids seeing porn while they're at the library, then supervise them while they're there instead of offloading your parental duties onto someone else. The whole point of a library is to facilitate the free exchange of information.
If your kids are so desperate to see porn that they're willing to get caught looking at it in a library, you've got bigger problems.
One has to wonder if a large enough number of kids have actually been caught looking at porn on library computers to warrant this law, or if it was just some uber-conservative trying to get re-elected by "protecting our most precious resource, our children."
At Martian atmospheric pressures, liquid water boils quickly and then evaporates. And Mars doesn't have enough gravity to retain water that's in gaseous form, so it floats off into space.
You fool! Didn't you see Demoliton Man? In that film, an amendment to the Constitution was passed specifically to allow Arnold Schwartzenegger to become President, due to his overwhelming popularity at the time (Demolition Man must've come out before Schwartzenegger was in The Last Action Hero).
It could happen! Sylvester Stallone is never wrong! Dammit, he is the lurgh!
The Catholic church has said that evolution is OK. I don't have any specific articles to link to in order to back up my claim, just that I've heard it from several Catholics.
By proxy, it would be a safe assumption to say that the Pope thinks that evolution is at least possible, since from my understanding of Catholicism the church would not make such a statement without the Pope's approval.
Yes, but those regimes still had a, "We're better than you" attitude.
And at least, in the grandparent post's world, people would have one less reason to commit genocide over. People still might kill each other over things like perceived racial superiority, but I'd imagine that more people have been killed over religion than anything else.
That is why they have stopped plans to drill into Lake Vostok until they can find a way to get in there without contaminating it.
While I forget the exact details, the leading plan right now seems to be something along the lines of putting the probe inside a canister of some kind, drilling until they're a few meters from the lake, heating the canister until it is hot enough to melt ice, and then sending it down the hole. Once it reaches the bottom of the hole, the heat will cause it to melt the ice below it, and as it goes down, the water above it will re-freeze, preventing contaminants from reaching the lake. The probe will then emerge from the canister, contaminant-free, and search the lake for life. There was something in their plans about keeping even the canister from actually touching the lake (so that any bacteria on its surface wouldn't skew their findings), but I've forgotten how they planned to do that.
Indeed. The reason that guns make noise is not because of the miniscule explosion, but because the bullet breaks the sound barrier.
For kicks, I once bought subsonic ammo. Except for a quiet "poof" and the click of the gun itself, it was completely silent. The only real drawback to subsonic ammo is that the bullet is extremely slow (by bullet standards, anyway), and because of that has a low range.
Have you ever stop to think, that complex sentences might actually have more meaning, than the simple ones? Do you think, that intelligent people don't talk like little children, just because they want to sound "cool"? You are very wrong.
Part of your problem is that you add unnecessary (and sometimes grammatically incorrect) commas. As a learning exercise, try reading the sentence aloud, pausing whenever you reach a comma.
Your sentence I quoted would be said: Have you ever stopped to think... that complex sentences might actually have more meaning... than simple ones?
Even that exercise, however, will only get you so far, because while you may speak that way (pausing for effect, perhaps), writing that way obfuscates your message. Native English speakers will most likely be able to figure it out, but those who speak English as a secondary language could have difficulty.
This coming from the company that sells your @hotmail.com e-mail address to spammers, only filters out about 1/2 of the spam sent to your Hotmail address, and only lets you have 256 addresses in your block list.
Sign up for a throwaway Hotmail address. Never give the address out to anyone. Never use it for registration. Just let it sit there for a month or so. Then log into it and see the mountains of spam it contains. Since you never gave this address to anyone, the only possible way the spammers got the address is because Microsoft sold it to them.
It's sort of like how the telephone companies sell your phone number to telemarketers, then sell you a Caller ID service so you can see if it's a telemarketer calling you or not, sell other people a service to block their number from showing up on Caller ID, sell the people with Caller ID an additional service that makes ALL numbers (even the blocked ones) show up, make you pay to have your phone number not show up in the phone book, etc.
First of all, GPL stands for General Public License.
You only have to give out the source code if you're distributing the changes outside of your organization. Even then, you only have to give the source code to whomever you're distributing to (or am I wrong on this?).
Using GCC does not mean that you're automatically required to release your program under the GPL. That would be ridiculous.
When it comes to the kernel itself, it's generally considered polite to give any improvements back to the community. No one requires you to do this so long as you aren't distributing the modified version outside your organization. Remember that quite a few very large corporations have contributed code to Linux (such as IBM, Intel, SGI, and others), many of them competitors. Also keep in mind that you have continuing access to the ever improving kernel source at no cost to you whatsoever.
Lastly, you really should've done more research into this. A few minutes of browsing the Internet (like perhaps on fsf.org, gnu.org, etc.), and actually reading the GPL would've told you that your lawyer was incorrect.
Of course, your whole post reeks of FUD and intentional misinformation. It has just enough truth to bait and hook someone who doesn't know better. Then it puts one over on them with bits like "the GNU Protective License", the whole spiel about having to rewrite every single bit of code from scratch for Win2K (even though your client requested you do the project for Linux; either you aren't a very good film (going against the client's wishes) or you just got caught lying), and that Microsoft's "Shared Source" is more fair. How exactly is being given the source to the entire OS for free, and in return being asked to publish the source only if you make changes and distribute them outside your organization, unfair? You even get to use the compiler and many of the libraries without having to publish the source to your programs.
Besides, most of the time people want you to print. Whether filling out a tax form, job application, or writing a college essay, they almost always explicitly ask people to print, because almost everyone's cursive (whether 50 years old or 15 years old) is absolutely horrid.
The only people who really care about cursive are 3rd grade teachers and pedants. My 3rd grade teacher actually went so far as to make fun of me in front of the class because my cursive was so bad that I often just gave up and resorted to printing. After that, just to spite her I wrote everything in print, even when asked to do it in cursive.
And even if cursive makes writing faster (and I'm still not convinced that it does), it reading it is slower. My theory is that our brains become trained at a fairly young age so that they can recognize a letter in block form fairly quickly, because 90% of the time that's how we see it (in print, on signs, on TV, on the computer, etc.). Our brains don't learn how to recognize the cursive form of that same letter until several years later. Add to this both the fact that cursive letters usually have only a small resemblance to their block counterparts, and that we see things written in cursive a very small percentage of the time (for handwritten notes, mostly). Then, compound it with most of the populace having bad handwriting, and that because cursive is mostly just a bunch of (very similar) loops it's harder to distinguish between them, and it's no wonder that people read cursive at a much slower rate than print.
* Do you want to recompile each package every time you want to update it, or do you want to do rpm -i?
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but lots of open source programs have both RPMs and SRPMs available from their website. No need to wait on RedHat, and you can still use RPM.
* Do you want to backport source patches to your current version, and then install it, or do you want to do rpm -i?
This statement is just untrue. I ran RedHat 7.2 long after everyone else went to 7.3 and then to 8.0. There was no "backporting" to do. If a newer version of a program came out, I just downloaded the new version and installed it.
* Do you want to have to watch every mailing list for possible security problems on your software, or do you just want to look in the errata section of the RedHat web site?
You don't have to watch every mailing list. It wouldn't hurt to be on the mailing list for the programs you use the most, though, and there are places on the web besides RedHat's site where you can find out about different programs' security problems fairly quickly.
Besides, there are a lot of commercial programs for Linux where the company that makes it will only offer support if you're running a specific version of RedHat. I think, as far as your company is concerned, having support for those (often expensive) programs is more important than getting RedHat's support, since you can do the OS support yourself, whereas you are entirely dependent on your commercial program's developers if you run into problems and the last thing you'll want to hear is "Oh, well, see, we don't support the program on that [distro | RedHat version]."
Slashdot Mirror
Point one: Applications dont care about squeezing every bit of performance out of their code. Niether do you if you use STL, so why not use a language that is actually easy to use overall.
.NET will quickly overtake them. Welcome to the real world.
Yeah, because nobody actually cares about having a snappy, responsive GUI. Nobody cares about having their programs start up in less than 10 minutes. Trying to make programs that have good performance is SO ten years ago!
I also love the way you used Visual Basic, Delphi, and C# as your example of how quickly development should go. News flash: no matter what language you use, if it only took an hour to write your app, then your app probably isn't that good.
Point two: Applications care about features.
Yes, but adding extraneous features just leads to bloat. Just look at Emacs: 100+ megabytes for a goddamn text editor.
Point three: Applications care about getting it done. And the faster they better.
Ok, you say that the faster an application gets its work done the better, but just before that you said application performance isn't important. Is a certain someone contradicting himself? I think so.
Or did you mean application developers? If that's the case, you need to work on your communication skills.
Most applications are written in VB, Delphi, or Java these days, and
What? While I won't deny that a lot of programs are written in those languages, the majority of applications are still written in C or C++. I can count the number of programs installed on my machine that are written in something other than C or C++ on one hand.
And not everybody is writing Windows apps. Even Windows developers laugh at kiddies who think Visual Basic is the answer to everything.
Knowing the way this country works, we'd probably land a person on Mars, the populace would "Ooh!" and "Aah!" for a few months, then lose interest. At which point, the unscrupulous members of Congress would whine, "Yeah, we beat those dirty gooks to Mars. But now that we've done it, why waste money by going back? Those damn scientists are just going to give whatever knowledge we acquire to the slopes and every other two-bit country anyway, so why not just spend some of their funding on some nice pork barrel that'll get us re-elected instead?" After which NASA's budget will shrivel, more Aegis carriers that the Navy doesn't want because they don't have enough personel to crew them will be built, and it'll be the same shit all over again.
At least, until the private sector catches up. That is, unless corporate interest wanes once the low-orbit version of the Concorde becomes a reality.
One does not need religion and orders from some higher power to think that killing people is wrong. Nor is morality a law (unfortunately, hardline conservatives often try to legislate morality anyway).
To me, someone with morals is someone who does not intentionally harm others, steal, is honest, cheat, etc. I assume that most people agree. The only time religion factors into this is when a religion has a similar moral code, and makes that moral code part of their religious law. Regardless, morality can exist without religion.
Someone with the desire to kill others will still do it, religion or not.
No, people without religion think that killing is wrong because they recognize that life is special. They know that a species that goes around killing each other instead of working together is one that is less likely to succeed. They also know that they themselves would not like to be killed, and can extend this to assume that other people don't want to be killed either.
If your kids are young enough for you to worry about them seeing porn, then they probably aren't old enough to drive, in which case you or someone else is probably taking them there.
So why aren't you doing your job as a parent and either a)watching them when you go, or b)only letting them go with someone you trust enough to watch them?
The libraries should oppose all forms of censorship. I don't really care if it gets some parent's or conservative's panties in a twist, censorship is censorship. If you're so worried about your kids seeing porn while they're at the library, then supervise them while they're there instead of offloading your parental duties onto someone else. The whole point of a library is to facilitate the free exchange of information.
If your kids are so desperate to see porn that they're willing to get caught looking at it in a library, you've got bigger problems.
One has to wonder if a large enough number of kids have actually been caught looking at porn on library computers to warrant this law, or if it was just some uber-conservative trying to get re-elected by "protecting our most precious resource, our children."
Yep. And from what I understand, those sandstorms have been known to cover most of the planet from time to time.
But you CAN run out of water on Mars.
At Martian atmospheric pressures, liquid water boils quickly and then evaporates. And Mars doesn't have enough gravity to retain water that's in gaseous form, so it floats off into space.
You fool! Didn't you see Demoliton Man? In that film, an amendment to the Constitution was passed specifically to allow Arnold Schwartzenegger to become President, due to his overwhelming popularity at the time (Demolition Man must've come out before Schwartzenegger was in The Last Action Hero).
It could happen! Sylvester Stallone is never wrong! Dammit, he is the lurgh!
The Catholic church has said that evolution is OK. I don't have any specific articles to link to in order to back up my claim, just that I've heard it from several Catholics.
By proxy, it would be a safe assumption to say that the Pope thinks that evolution is at least possible, since from my understanding of Catholicism the church would not make such a statement without the Pope's approval.
Yes, but those regimes still had a, "We're better than you" attitude.
And at least, in the grandparent post's world, people would have one less reason to commit genocide over. People still might kill each other over things like perceived racial superiority, but I'd imagine that more people have been killed over religion than anything else.
That is why they have stopped plans to drill into Lake Vostok until they can find a way to get in there without contaminating it.
While I forget the exact details, the leading plan right now seems to be something along the lines of putting the probe inside a canister of some kind, drilling until they're a few meters from the lake, heating the canister until it is hot enough to melt ice, and then sending it down the hole. Once it reaches the bottom of the hole, the heat will cause it to melt the ice below it, and as it goes down, the water above it will re-freeze, preventing contaminants from reaching the lake. The probe will then emerge from the canister, contaminant-free, and search the lake for life. There was something in their plans about keeping even the canister from actually touching the lake (so that any bacteria on its surface wouldn't skew their findings), but I've forgotten how they planned to do that.
Indeed. The reason that guns make noise is not because of the miniscule explosion, but because the bullet breaks the sound barrier.
For kicks, I once bought subsonic ammo. Except for a quiet "poof" and the click of the gun itself, it was completely silent. The only real drawback to subsonic ammo is that the bullet is extremely slow (by bullet standards, anyway), and because of that has a low range.
[I had to remind her these people are called archaeologists].
Actually, those people are called paleontologists. Archaeologists dig up buildings and pots and things of that sort.
Have you ever stop to think, that complex sentences might actually have more meaning, than the simple ones? Do you think, that intelligent people don't talk like little children, just because they want to sound "cool"? You are very wrong.
Part of your problem is that you add unnecessary (and sometimes grammatically incorrect) commas. As a learning exercise, try reading the sentence aloud, pausing whenever you reach a comma.
Your sentence I quoted would be said:
Have you ever stopped to think... that complex sentences might actually have more meaning... than simple ones?
Even that exercise, however, will only get you so far, because while you may speak that way (pausing for effect, perhaps), writing that way obfuscates your message. Native English speakers will most likely be able to figure it out, but those who speak English as a secondary language could have difficulty.
I've tried it with nonsense words.
;)
bloobedop@hotmail.com shouldn't generate any dictionary matches
This coming from the company that sells your @hotmail.com e-mail address to spammers, only filters out about 1/2 of the spam sent to your Hotmail address, and only lets you have 256 addresses in your block list.
Sign up for a throwaway Hotmail address. Never give the address out to anyone. Never use it for registration. Just let it sit there for a month or so. Then log into it and see the mountains of spam it contains. Since you never gave this address to anyone, the only possible way the spammers got the address is because Microsoft sold it to them.
It's sort of like how the telephone companies sell your phone number to telemarketers, then sell you a Caller ID service so you can see if it's a telemarketer calling you or not, sell other people a service to block their number from showing up on Caller ID, sell the people with Caller ID an additional service that makes ALL numbers (even the blocked ones) show up, make you pay to have your phone number not show up in the phone book, etc.
This isn't to catch the spammers. It's to catch the harvesters.
Actually, radiation can kill a spacecraft if it hasn't been properly hardened against it.
On Earth, we're shielded from most of the cosmic and solar radiation. Not so in space.
Even without radiation, friction will eventually get the best of any moving parts, with or without gravity and an atmosphere.
1.) Don't use Blender as a model.
:(
IMO they made the Blender interface difficult to figure out on purpose, so that they would sell more Blender manuals.
You could download Blender for free, but had to pay for the documentation
I should add that you don't even need to run lilo after this. bzLilo builds the kernel, installs everything where it needs to go, and then runs lilo.
/etc/lilo.conf so that you can boot into the old kernel if the new one crashes.
You still might want to edit
cd /path/to/kernel
make xconfig
make dep # also make clean if you've upgraded via a patch
make modules modules_install bzLilo
He could be running a 386 emulator on his 286.
;)
Or maybe he's cross-compiling.
Or...
Shut up
First of all, GPL stands for General Public License.
.
You only have to give out the source code if you're distributing the changes outside of your organization. Even then, you only have to give the source code to whomever you're distributing to (or am I wrong on this?).
Using GCC does not mean that you're automatically required to release your program under the GPL. That would be ridiculous.
When it comes to the kernel itself, it's generally considered polite to give any improvements back to the community. No one requires you to do this so long as you aren't distributing the modified version outside your organization. Remember that quite a few very large corporations have contributed code to Linux (such as IBM, Intel, SGI, and others), many of them competitors. Also keep in mind that you have continuing access to the ever improving kernel source at no cost to you whatsoever
Lastly, you really should've done more research into this. A few minutes of browsing the Internet (like perhaps on fsf.org, gnu.org, etc.), and actually reading the GPL would've told you that your lawyer was incorrect.
Of course, your whole post reeks of FUD and intentional misinformation. It has just enough truth to bait and hook someone who doesn't know better. Then it puts one over on them with bits like "the GNU Protective License", the whole spiel about having to rewrite every single bit of code from scratch for Win2K (even though your client requested you do the project for Linux; either you aren't a very good film (going against the client's wishes) or you just got caught lying), and that Microsoft's "Shared Source" is more fair. How exactly is being given the source to the entire OS for free, and in return being asked to publish the source only if you make changes and distribute them outside your organization, unfair? You even get to use the compiler and many of the libraries without having to publish the source to your programs.
The FUD-o-meter gives your post 23 FUD points.
Playing games for a Nintendo system on a Sony TV?
Isn't it ironic, dontcha think?
A little too ironic
Yes I really do think...
Exactly.
Besides, most of the time people want you to print. Whether filling out a tax form, job application, or writing a college essay, they almost always explicitly ask people to print, because almost everyone's cursive (whether 50 years old or 15 years old) is absolutely horrid.
The only people who really care about cursive are 3rd grade teachers and pedants. My 3rd grade teacher actually went so far as to make fun of me in front of the class because my cursive was so bad that I often just gave up and resorted to printing. After that, just to spite her I wrote everything in print, even when asked to do it in cursive.
And even if cursive makes writing faster (and I'm still not convinced that it does), it reading it is slower. My theory is that our brains become trained at a fairly young age so that they can recognize a letter in block form fairly quickly, because 90% of the time that's how we see it (in print, on signs, on TV, on the computer, etc.). Our brains don't learn how to recognize the cursive form of that same letter until several years later. Add to this both the fact that cursive letters usually have only a small resemblance to their block counterparts, and that we see things written in cursive a very small percentage of the time (for handwritten notes, mostly). Then, compound it with most of the populace having bad handwriting, and that because cursive is mostly just a bunch of (very similar) loops it's harder to distinguish between them, and it's no wonder that people read cursive at a much slower rate than print.
* Do you want to recompile each package every time you want to update it, or do you want to do rpm -i?
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but lots of open source programs have both RPMs and SRPMs available from their website. No need to wait on RedHat, and you can still use RPM.
* Do you want to backport source patches to your current version, and then install it, or do you want to do rpm -i?
This statement is just untrue. I ran RedHat 7.2 long after everyone else went to 7.3 and then to 8.0. There was no "backporting" to do. If a newer version of a program came out, I just downloaded the new version and installed it.
* Do you want to have to watch every mailing list for possible security problems on your software, or do you just want to look in the errata section of the RedHat web site?
You don't have to watch every mailing list. It wouldn't hurt to be on the mailing list for the programs you use the most, though, and there are places on the web besides RedHat's site where you can find out about different programs' security problems fairly quickly.
Besides, there are a lot of commercial programs for Linux where the company that makes it will only offer support if you're running a specific version of RedHat. I think, as far as your company is concerned, having support for those (often expensive) programs is more important than getting RedHat's support, since you can do the OS support yourself, whereas you are entirely dependent on your commercial program's developers if you run into problems and the last thing you'll want to hear is "Oh, well, see, we don't support the program on that [distro | RedHat version]."