Micro Center isn't just in the west. We have one right here Cambridge. It's a great store, and not for nothing: beside their excellent support, they have a section of the store dedicated to building your own with knowledgable staff, and they have great sales and rebates (with a search function and printers available all over the salesfloor). I've never paid anywhere near full price for a hard drive there, and I never had to settle for a sketchy brand, either.
The war isn't a religious war. The cylons at the end of the pilot debate among themselves about allowing the last humans to go free. They decide that the humans will spread and come back for revenge eventually, so they can't afford to. If they believed it was a divine edict to kill all the humans, they wouldn't've had that discussion.
Anybody remember the old Macintosh Map CDEV? (Or was it a Desk Utility? I can't remember.) It had a location for "Middle of Nowhere". Looks like Google Maps has one too:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=middle%20of%20nowh er e&sll=37.062500%2C-95.677068&sspn=47.687500%2C81.5 64923
What's really interesting is that it's changed since yesterday, when it was located in northern Idaho.
Don't know about anyone else, but when I exercise and see the resultant better sleep, it means I don't have to sleep as long to be refreshed, because I sleep more deeply. So more exercise == less sleep + lost weight, at least in my case.
My arguments on why to use a source-based distribution have been covered in other posts, so I won't repeat them here. I think Gentoo provides a solution that will satisfy both you and your professor: you can use a source-based, custom-built binary distribution.
As you probably know, Gentoo is a source-based distribution, but it also allows binary packages. Many (such as Mozilla Firefox) are distributed by Gentoo as source and binary; you can choose to install either. The ability to build a binary package from a source.ebuild (the file that describes to the system where to find the source and how to build it) requires adding only a single flag to the package compile command, ebuild.
Additionally, since (if I read you correctly) you're probably using similar hardware for each of your machines, it would be trivial to set up a compile box which would produce binary packages for your other boxen. Packages compiled for your architecture would be faster than most binary-only distributions (many are still compiled for the i386 architecture), and writing a new ebuild is trivial compared to writing a new spec file. (Trust me; I spent a quarter writing a paper on the topic while I was in school, not to mention having had to do it myself in the Real World.)
Finally, Gentoo integrates and tests its packages. Ebuilds come with Gentoo-specific patches, so you don't have to spend the time to make each source package work with the rest. This is probably one reason why your professor likes binary distributions: they all work together, and enough people rely on them that if something breaks, it gets fixed. A package-based Gentoo distribution would allow you to leverage that, while keeping your machines unified in their versioning (as much as you want them to be, at least) and also provide all of the benefits of a source-based distribution.
Anybody read Splinter of the Mind's Eye? This plot seems to borrow fairly heavily from it. Its initial publication was after A New Hope and prior to Empire. Chances are Lucas didn't (and won't) use large portions of the plot from that book as the basis of the next movie. Also, I was pretty young then, but I'm pretty sure "genetic engineering" wasn't a household term in 1983.
Here's a review that puts a positive spin on Nemesis. Without any real spoilers, the reviewer discusses the plot and its similarities to other ST films, especially The Wrath of Kahn. The review echos what critics in mainstream media have been saying.
I had a great professor who once said that writing code is more like writing an essay than like any other human activity. His point was that code ought to communicate to its reader exactly what it's doing. While I agreed with him on that point, I've always thought coding was more like writing poetry:
When you start doing either, you have a limited set of components to work with (words and grammar vs. commands, programming structures and such), and you put these together to form your work. A good programmer or poet tries to find the most appropriate of these components to use, and to arrange them optimally. Both require creativity, and the goal is (or at least should be) a work of elegance, beauty, and efficiency (the best poems don't waste a single word).
It means just the opposite, in fact; I had a professor who forbade us to use the term "just semantics" in class, on the basis that "Just semantics means 'just meaning'".
semantic adj.
1. Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.
Ximian Evolution supports integration with Exchange on what looks like the level you're looking for. Check out their press release. A quote:
"With Ximian Connector installed, Ximian Evolution will function as a Microsoft Exchange 2000 client, enabling users to manage their email, personal calendars, group schedules, address books and tasks lists using existing company Exchange 2000 servers."
I'm not certain this is what you're looking for, but it seems to fit the bill to me. I use Evolution myself, and highly recommend it.
I find your statement a little hard to swallow. Beliefs aside, what proof could you possibly have that an event 2,000 years in history did or did not happen, an event of which the only existing accounts argue for it having taken place (the earliest dating only 37 years later, when plenty of people present at the time of the event would've still been around to refute it)?
I don't mean to argue for or against Jesus having walked on water or having healed people (yet); I merely find your statement intriguing. What proof do you have?
Toaster-specific applications notwithstanding, the reasons VNC would be useful on as opposed to are the same as the advantages VNC has over the protocol you're comparing it to (say HTTP/HTML; most of the comments seem to focus on that). Maybe somebody just wants to utilize VNC's particular merits, or has a program that uses VNC connections to get its job done, and just wants to integrate a toaster, or light switch, or entertainment center. What if I use VNC a lot, but not the web? Why use HTTP, for that matter, instead of X.10 or something else that was originally designed for home automation? Because it suits the purposes you're designing with.
The main objection I've been seeing in the comments is this, though: "Why not use something more lightweight?". Answer? The server runs on a C64.
Anybody ever notice that the kernel is the core part of a UNIX system, similar to the kernel of an atom, and that the shell is the outer part of each? In each instance the shell is changable, and also the 'interface', as it were, to the whole unit. Seems like this might be a good example of somebody getting cross-field terminology right.
The abstract for the article is in error: it reads, "The non-profit security team w00w00.org started off 2002 by uncovering a serious flaw in AOL's Instant Messenger protocol... This flaw can enable remote users to execute code on any machine logged into the AOL IM service.". The flaw isn't in the protocol itself but in the client, and therefore doesn't actually affect "any machine logged into the AOL IM service". It sounds like AOL is going to prevent the sending of exploit packets at the server level to avoid requesting all of their Windows users to upgrade, but those of us using Linux or another OS should be fine regardless.
I really wonder if this move will change anything. I imagine most IT managers upgrade their software at least once every three years- in that case, it won't cost them any more, and for those locked into a Microsoft-centric environment there aren't likely to be many other options anyway.
As for home users, who really reads their license agreements? Unless Microsoft makes this really vocal (and if they do, it'll be a 'feature') I doubt it'll change how the average user buys software, either.
Whether or not you think that it's a last ditch strategy or a fancy plot, it's a good one. MacOS X promises to be a stable UNIX OS combined with an integrated (and if Apple pulls through like they have in the past, usable and functional) GUI. Jobs has a better product to sell, and one that will benefit the community.
Jobs also opened up the source (after a fashion) to the OS, allowing developers to port it to the x86 architecture (and perhaps others in the future). That isn't trying "to get macs more accepted". That's a sound strategy for deploying a new OS.
Rees (or the author of the article, it's not directly in quotes) seems to be implying that the orbit of the Earth being elliptical is more likely than it being circular. If it were circular, he speculates, we'd have to assume that it's Just Like That, or an act of God, but that it wouldn't imply a multiverse in the same way that our elliptical orbit does.
But is a circular orbit (or any characteristic of the universe) any less likely than any other? Considering Rees theory on the multiverse, an entirely arbitrary set of physical laws might exist elsewhere (or could have existed in our universe), making a circular orbit equally likely.
It seems to me that our elliptical orbit, just like a circular one, is either Just Like That, or an act of God. It could be brute force because it's part of a multiverse of brute force universes, or it could be that way just 'cause it is, and be the only one. Either way, I don't think the conclusion he came to can be logically drawn from it.
Slashdot Mirror
Micro Center isn't just in the west. We have one right here Cambridge. It's a great store, and not for nothing: beside their excellent support, they have a section of the store dedicated to building your own with knowledgable staff, and they have great sales and rebates (with a search function and printers available all over the salesfloor). I've never paid anywhere near full price for a hard drive there, and I never had to settle for a sketchy brand, either.
The war isn't a religious war. The cylons at the end of the pilot debate among themselves about allowing the last humans to go free. They decide that the humans will spread and come back for revenge eventually, so they can't afford to. If they believed it was a divine edict to kill all the humans, they wouldn't've had that discussion.
Anybody remember the old Macintosh Map CDEV? (Or was it a Desk Utility? I can't remember.) It had a location for "Middle of Nowhere". Looks like Google Maps has one too:
h er e&sll=37.062500%2C-95.677068&sspn=47.687500%2C81.5 64923
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=middle%20of%20now
What's really interesting is that it's changed since yesterday, when it was located in northern Idaho.
Don't know about anyone else, but when I exercise and see the resultant better sleep, it means I don't have to sleep as long to be refreshed, because I sleep more deeply. So more exercise == less sleep + lost weight, at least in my case.
My arguments on why to use a source-based distribution have been covered in other posts, so I won't repeat them here. I think Gentoo provides a solution that will satisfy both you and your professor: you can use a source-based, custom-built binary distribution.
.ebuild (the file that describes to the system where to find the source and how to build it) requires adding only a single flag to the package compile command, ebuild.
As you probably know, Gentoo is a source-based distribution, but it also allows binary packages. Many (such as Mozilla Firefox) are distributed by Gentoo as source and binary; you can choose to install either. The ability to build a binary package from a source
Additionally, since (if I read you correctly) you're probably using similar hardware for each of your machines, it would be trivial to set up a compile box which would produce binary packages for your other boxen. Packages compiled for your architecture would be faster than most binary-only distributions (many are still compiled for the i386 architecture), and writing a new ebuild is trivial compared to writing a new spec file. (Trust me; I spent a quarter writing a paper on the topic while I was in school, not to mention having had to do it myself in the Real World.)
Finally, Gentoo integrates and tests its packages. Ebuilds come with Gentoo-specific patches, so you don't have to spend the time to make each source package work with the rest. This is probably one reason why your professor likes binary distributions: they all work together, and enough people rely on them that if something breaks, it gets fixed. A package-based Gentoo distribution would allow you to leverage that, while keeping your machines unified in their versioning (as much as you want them to be, at least) and also provide all of the benefits of a source-based distribution.
Anybody read Splinter of the Mind's Eye? This plot seems to borrow fairly heavily from it. Its initial publication was after A New Hope and prior to Empire. Chances are Lucas didn't (and won't) use large portions of the plot from that book as the basis of the next movie. Also, I was pretty young then, but I'm pretty sure "genetic engineering" wasn't a household term in 1983.
Here's a review that puts a positive spin on Nemesis. Without any real spoilers, the reviewer discusses the plot and its similarities to other ST films, especially The Wrath of Kahn. The review echos what critics in mainstream media have been saying.
I had a great professor who once said that writing code is more like writing an essay than like any other human activity. His point was that code ought to communicate to its reader exactly what it's doing. While I agreed with him on that point, I've always thought coding was more like writing poetry:
When you start doing either, you have a limited set of components to work with (words and grammar vs. commands, programming structures and such), and you put these together to form your work. A good programmer or poet tries to find the most appropriate of these components to use, and to arrange them optimally. Both require creativity, and the goal is (or at least should be) a work of elegance, beauty, and efficiency (the best poems don't waste a single word).
It means just the opposite, in fact; I had a professor who forbade us to use the term "just semantics" in class, on the basis that "Just semantics means 'just meaning'".
semantic
adj.
1. Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.
Ximian Evolution supports integration with Exchange on what looks like the level you're looking for. Check out their press release. A quote:
"With Ximian Connector installed, Ximian Evolution will function as a Microsoft Exchange 2000 client, enabling users to manage their email, personal calendars, group schedules, address books and tasks lists using existing company Exchange 2000 servers."
I'm not certain this is what you're looking for, but it seems to fit the bill to me. I use Evolution myself, and highly recommend it.
I find your statement a little hard to swallow. Beliefs aside, what proof could you possibly have that an event 2,000 years in history did or did not happen, an event of which the only existing accounts argue for it having taken place (the earliest dating only 37 years later, when plenty of people present at the time of the event would've still been around to refute it)?
I don't mean to argue for or against Jesus having walked on water or having healed people (yet); I merely find your statement intriguing. What proof do you have?
Toaster-specific applications notwithstanding, the reasons VNC would be useful on as opposed to are the same as the advantages VNC has over the protocol you're comparing it to (say HTTP/HTML; most of the comments seem to focus on that). Maybe somebody just wants to utilize VNC's particular merits, or has a program that uses VNC connections to get its job done, and just wants to integrate a toaster, or light switch, or entertainment center. What if I use VNC a lot, but not the web? Why use HTTP, for that matter, instead of X.10 or something else that was originally designed for home automation? Because it suits the purposes you're designing with.
The main objection I've been seeing in the comments is this, though: "Why not use something more lightweight?". Answer? The server runs on a C64.
Anybody ever notice that the kernel is the core part of a UNIX system, similar to the kernel of an atom, and that the shell is the outer part of each? In each instance the shell is changable, and also the 'interface', as it were, to the whole unit. Seems like this might be a good example of somebody getting cross-field terminology right.
The abstract for the article is in error: it reads, "The non-profit security team w00w00.org started off 2002 by uncovering a serious flaw in AOL's Instant Messenger protocol... This flaw can enable remote users to execute code on any machine logged into the AOL IM service.". The flaw isn't in the protocol itself but in the client, and therefore doesn't actually affect "any machine logged into the AOL IM service". It sounds like AOL is going to prevent the sending of exploit packets at the server level to avoid requesting all of their Windows users to upgrade, but those of us using Linux or another OS should be fine regardless.
I really wonder if this move will change anything. I imagine most IT managers upgrade their software at least once every three years- in that case, it won't cost them any more, and for those locked into a Microsoft-centric environment there aren't likely to be many other options anyway.
As for home users, who really reads their license agreements? Unless Microsoft makes this really vocal (and if they do, it'll be a 'feature') I doubt it'll change how the average user buys software, either.
Whether or not you think that it's a last ditch strategy or a fancy plot, it's a good one. MacOS X promises to be a stable UNIX OS combined with an integrated (and if Apple pulls through like they have in the past, usable and functional) GUI. Jobs has a better product to sell, and one that will benefit the community.
Jobs also opened up the source (after a fashion) to the OS, allowing developers to port it to the x86 architecture (and perhaps others in the future). That isn't trying "to get macs more accepted". That's a sound strategy for deploying a new OS.
Rees (or the author of the article, it's not directly in quotes) seems to be implying that the orbit of the Earth being elliptical is more likely than it being circular. If it were circular, he speculates, we'd have to assume that it's Just Like That, or an act of God, but that it wouldn't imply a multiverse in the same way that our elliptical orbit does.
But is a circular orbit (or any characteristic of the universe) any less likely than any other? Considering Rees theory on the multiverse, an entirely arbitrary set of physical laws might exist elsewhere (or could have existed in our universe), making a circular orbit equally likely.
It seems to me that our elliptical orbit, just like a circular one, is either Just Like That, or an act of God. It could be brute force because it's part of a multiverse of brute force universes, or it could be that way just 'cause it is, and be the only one. Either way, I don't think the conclusion he came to can be logically drawn from it.