I've seen demos of Wayland that had per window remoting, including moving and cloning per window across different diplays. Wouldn't it be nice if xmove still actually worked for most applications? If you could just move your application across Xservers as you wished and didn't have to worry about temporary network outages killing you application? Well apparently Wayland can do that. So it seems to me that Wayland has potentially more to offer in terms of network transparency than X. It isn't done yet, so let's wait and see. Everything I've seen looks very promising.
Every release gets harder to customize for utility.
I heard that about GNOME 3.x, but then I actually got around to using it. It didn't have a user switch feature I liked. I just share a computer amongst my family so a fast user switch that listed users and didn't have to go through passwords is fine... and no longer a provided option.
So I decided to see if there really was anything I could do about it via extensions. I spent a little time researching -- mostly learning javascript, which I didn't know at the time, and a tutorial on how to write extensions. From there is was surprisingly easy to write something that did exactly what I wanted, complete with polling DBUS for a user list. It was the sort of thing I never would have been able to do in GNOME2 if it lacked a feature I wanted: I would have had to hack and recompile code for applets or some such.
To be honest GNOME3 reminded me of the old FVWM days -- you could make it do pretty much anything you wanted if you were willing to roll up your sleeves a little and muck with configuration/scripting. There's a wealth of extreme customisability exposed, it just doesn't have pointy-clicky buttons (you know just like back in the FVWM days when you customised stuff with emacs and.fvwmrc).
It's not yet clear that Wayland will ever support displaying less than a full desktop across a network connection, and nothing the developers have said suggests otherwise.
I've seen a demo that forwarded individual windows, and moreover managed to move and duplicate the single window over a couple of displays -- like xmove, but working (xmove never worked well, and is unmaintained now), with bonus features. Wayland will have these things in due course.
If he is a US citizen it doesn't matter if he lives in the US or not; he's required to file, including all the foreign bank accounts (even if they are just usual bank accounts for your country of residence. Thus they are just as able to snoop for tax cheats.
Except for the first time this magicking of money out of thin air has a hard limit on the amount that can be made.
A hard limit on the amount? Yes. A hard limit on the value? Not even close. The amount of bitcoins has gone up slowly, but the value has ballooned (or bubbled if you like), and there's no limit on that bubble other than when the hoarders decide to cash out. At that point bitcoins will suffer a brief period of hyperinflation before the hoarding starts again and the whole process repeats.
How do you launch something when you don't know its name? Sit a newbie down in front of gnome panel and they'll never find all of the "hidden" programs.
The type to search applications feature searches more than just application names -- it searches a number of fields in the.desktop files, including application descriptions. Thus a search for "spreadsheet" will bring up LibreOffice Calc for example. Type what you want to do, and you'll find what you want... that's the theory.
If I'm hanging out with some of my colleagues during conference breaks and chatting, and a female attendee walks in, my job and my 2 kids college fund/food supply/roof depends on me immediately maintaining a silence and uttering "Yes m'am" or "No ma'm" if and when appropriate, and that is all. There will be no conversation, exchanging views on squat, smiling etc. Its just gotten too dangerous to talk freely now.
Really? You're on such thin ice at your job that a comment and/or photo on the internet by some random person is going to get you fired? Either you suck at your job, your employer sucks, or you're making several mountain ranges out of a molehill.
Yes, someone lost their job in this incident, but given that only one of the two male developers involved were fired I presume there's rather more detail here that we're not privy to. Did Adria over-react? Yes. But let's be honest: all she really did was complain about some people on the internet. She didn't demand they be fired, she didn't try and DDoS their company, etc. She did a thoughtless thing without considering the consequences -- you know, kind of like loudly making crude jokes in mixed company is a thoughtless thing that doesn't consider the consequences. Over-reacting to her particular stupid mistake is just as stupid as her own over-reaction to the guys stupid mistake. How about we all just grow up and move on.
I got provided with 2 24" widescreen monitors, which gives pemty of screen real-estate, but makes for very wide anglew viewing. After a period of frustration with panning my eyes across the width of them I realised I could orient them vertically since they were on rotatable mounts. This turned out to be great -- the extra height fits more lines of code on screen at a time, and works nicely dual screen. I reccomend such a setup to anyone.
Bitcoin will probably last another few years and then it will choke on its own deflation. i.e. bitcoins will become so valuable that none of them will be in circulation.
I'm sure some bitcoins will remain in circulation, and they will get divided into ever finer fractions to provide the requisite liquidity to be a currency at the scale they wish to be. Then eventually the deflation will have gone far enough that a hoarder will decide to cash out. Then, when everyone has been trading in.0001 bitcoins, they'll sell their 1000 bitcoins for a lot of cash and bitcoins will suffer from a sudden massive bout of inflation as the money supply expands by orders of magnitude in an uncontrolled fashion. Then the deflation will kick in again until...
All the bitcoin fanatics saying that deflation is good and inflation is the root of all evil... they're missing the point: bitcoin is going to suffer from inflation, just a sudden unpredictable rampant uncontrolled bursts -- and that's the inflation that really sucks. Slow, small scale predictable controlled inflation can be accepted, large scale unpredictable uncontrolled inflation is what causes panics, crashes and economic mayhem.
Except right now it inflates at the rate of 25 coins every 10 minutes. So your statement seems to be wrong.
A currency that increases in size slower than the economy using that currency is still deflationary. Yes, there is an increasing amount of the currency available, but the demand for the currency outstrips that. Sure, bitcoin could be inflationary right now, presuming that it only ever traded for the same fixed value of goods and services it is used for right now. I don't think such a non-growth strategy is what bitcoin is after though.
I think what is missed here is Brook's maxim "build one to throw away". Sure, sometimes you need to actually build something to figure out what its for, or what it should be. That's an important step in engineering. The hard part is to take the next step and be willing to throw all of that away so you can build a good version. It's hard because often it took a large amount of work to get that first version doing all the things you slowly realised it needed to be able to do. Its worth it because, if you were paying attention, you also learned all the ways in which you built it badly the first time that can all be fixed with those difficulties in mind from the outset.
Throwing out working code is often bad. But if you start with the mentality that you are building it to throw away -- to learn what it can do, what it should do, and how best to structure things so it will do it -- then its easier to take that step and start again with the knowledge you gained.
A given layout is mandated by the journal, and putting the paper into that layout is done by the authors, not the publisher.
This is not usually the case in biomedical sciences - the layout is created by the (paid) journal editorial staff. However, it's totally unclear to me why this is even necessary, for several reasons:
In mathematics, however, everything is typeset in LaTeX, and the journals all provide a LaTeX style file, or document class for you to use. Papers are all formatted exactly as the journal wishes by the authors of the paper at the time of submission.
I agree that the model proposed in TFA doesn't work for all cases quite as easily, but in the math world it is definitely very practicable.
Re:Web Server development
on
Perl Turns 25
·
· Score: 2
There is nothing that requires that Perl code be write-only.
No, there isn't... but there's nothing that encourages it either. And perl has a elatively high congitive load in terms of all the many subtle features and idioms that you need to keep track of. If you're reading code that only uses a subset of idioms and features that you're comfortable with it's fine, but it is relatively easy to end up outside your comfort zone with other people's code unless you are deeply invested in the language. In this way it is much like C++.
In practice however a lot of Perl's reputation for unreadability is historical, and cultural. Back when Perl was more popular there was very much a culture of "neat hacks", JAPHs and perl golf. That meant that a lot of Perl code you saw in examples was often cryptic, or revelled in terse complexity.
These days I think Haskell has taken the crown for the culture that produces terse, complex and cryptic code. There's nothing in Haskell that means it has to be hard to read, but a culture of showing off with terseness has developed and...
That's a codebook, not a one time pad. They are distinctly different. Code books are theoretically crackable given sufficient ciphertext and a model for the plaintext (e.g. English). In practice "sufficient" ciphertext is never going to happen. One time pads are uncrackable in theory. In practice mistakes can be made that make them not true one time pads and thus potentially crackable (but that require multiple messages using the same pad -- not the case here).
I've written a few articles lately and not run into any troubles. What kinds of articles are people writing?
He is mostly railing against deletionists, so what you need to do is look at articles nomiated for deletion on any given day and you'll get an idea. It's mostly stuff that's very obscure or out of place (in that it should probably be merged into a different article instead of having one all to itself). While I have some sympathy for anti-deletionists in that its not like Wikipedia is running out of storage space, mostly I find they are people who want to rule over their own little kingdom of obscure trivia. That is, they want to be the people they complain about (angry editors who firecely police and put down anyone who intervenes on articles), and are annoyed that no-one else has much interest in the small area of human knowledge over which they feel they command suitable authority.
I shudder to think of the cost and reliability to count handwritten ballots.
I have lived and voted in two different countries that used hand counted handwritten ballots. There were never any problems, counts were efficient, and reliability was high (very close electorates/ridings had recounts only to arrive at suffciently close to the same totals to give a very high degree of confidence in the counting process). While both countries had smaller populations than the US as a whole they had populations comparable to individual states, and I see no reason the systems wouldn't scale.
The first key is to have a completely independent organisation that runs the elections. But really look at any number of countries around the world that have reliable elections with handwritten ballots.
And Kylix was Borland's Hail Mary shot as Delphi was spiralling down the drain. What's worse, it wasn't native linux, but a kludge of QT and Wine, and yet still didn't provide backwards compatability to Delphi.
Kylix didn't fail because it was for linux. Kylix was doomed from the start because it was a hastily put together lifeboat from the sinking ship of Delphi.
Detailing some nice fails on Google's part in mapping.
Well yes, but the fact that they managed to come up with 10 failures for Google maps over the many years its been available, while that tumblr blog has hundreds of comparable failures (misplaced cities, useless directions, completely incorrect coastlines, invalid borders, all as bad as what was listed in the page you linked) in a few days says something. Mapping is hard, there are enourmous amounts of data, and mistakes will be made. Apple seems to have made an order of magnitude more and are being ridiculed for it.
Also another thing that seems really stupid to complain about is flat satellite data warped in 3D mode. You are getting something you could not see before on mobile devices
Except Nokia already has this, and their 3D version reportedly doesn't have anywhere near this range of issues. Again, 3D projection and stitching together photos is very hard. Bit Apple has made an order of magnitude more errors than their competitors. Consequently they are being ridiculed for this.
I thought you might have taken the time to look things up, but apparently not. Let's recap then; Euclid proved that there are infinitely many primes in approx. 300 BC. The proof is very straightforward and has been repeated many times. See here for a canonical example. But wait, there's more. Bored mathematicians have found other proofs, usually perverse ones for amusement value. See, for example Goldbach's proof, or Furstenberg's topological proof.
Perhaps your going to say that those are just a touch hand-wavy and not "derived directly from mathematical laws". That would be a mistake, but we can cover that too: here is a proof that is conveniently completely machine verifiable and traceable back to formal axioms -- specifically first order predicate calculus and Zermelo Frankel set theory (we don't even need the axiom of choice!).
There are infinitely many primes. But don't trust me -- work through the metamath proof in all the gory details if you really still don't believe.
While it's believed the number of prime numbers themselves are infinite (it's not easy proving anything in mathematics with the word 'infinite' in it)
Yes, if only we could prove there is an infinite number of oprimes rather than just believing, presumably from some famous named conjecture. I'm sure any such proof would require extremely deep and difficult mathematics and not be something that is used in textbooks as a first example of mathematical proof as copied straight out of Euclid.
Ehm, isn't there xmove that lets you move X11 apps from one X11 server to another?
Well presuming you want something that had development discontinued in 1997 and has been essentially unmaintained ever since... Even the man pages have strong warnings that xmove is old, unmaintained, and not guaranteed to work at all.
No, he's saying that the vast profits that Apple successfully made by being the first mover in this field is already plenty of incentive the invest in such "risky" endeavours -- Apple has earned well above and beyond any research costs -- so we probably don't need to grant special monopoly rights for an extra 15 years just to get companies to invest in innovative research.
In the end, I think with GNOME 3 we need to emphasize design coherency and slickness - what is different and better, and that actually is more important than being 100% sure we perfectly meet everybody's workflow.
That's stunning... "design coherency and slickness" is more important than a good workflow!
No, he said design coherency and slickness was more important than meeting everybody's workflow perfectly. That is, if you can make a coherent system that has a good workflow for 90% of users, don't go breaking the consistency and coherency for the 10% that have a wide variety of weird and unique workflows. And I don't think that's a bad plan. Thyere are a large number of DEs out there for Linux, so if you are a unique and special snowflake with a need for a very particular workflow you can use one of those. The reality is that the last 10% of workflows can be incredibly diverse and incredibly difficult to cater to well without ending up with a complex mess. So perhaps a good solution is, instead of providing a hobbled workflow for that 10% as you try and shoehorn it into the existing system, cater to the 90% and let the 10% use specialised tools that can create excellent workflows for their more rareified uses.
You need a certain amount of ongoing trade to keep liquidity in the market -- otherwise it is hard to get money to where it needs to be for new projects, new ventures, etc. Look at it this way: a large part of the economic problems back in 2008 and early 2009 were due to a "credit crunch" where banks were unable or unwilling to loan money; this resulted in liquidity drying up and businesses facing severe difficulties due to the uncertainty of whether they could get money on hand when they needed it (for example, to make payroll at the end of the month). Without sufficient liquidity business stagnates. This is why deflation can be so bad.
Dol Guldur is barely hinted at in the book in just a couple of lines I think. Given the shortness of the book in terms of actual time that passes, the council to deal with Dol Guldur would have taken place after Bilbo was safely back home, the most Gandalf could have done in the short time he was away from the party would be to investigate the necromancer and discover who he might be.
Yes, but if you were to expand the point of view of the Hobbit a little bit, and include a little more material such as Gandalf going to Dol Guldur etc. then you leave yourself well setup for a third film with Bilbo at home and the council waging war on the necromancer. Of course that's not to say that's what they've done, but for now I'm willing to give them the benfit of the doubt and wait and see what they've actually done. As it stands The Hobbit is a very narrow story that leads into LoTR but doesn't really sit well with it; by having a LoTR prequel that expands upon the Hobbit with further material from the Appendices of LoTR I could imagine a much better lead in to the LoTR trilogy being made. Let's hope that's what they're aiming for.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen demos of Wayland that had per window remoting, including moving and cloning per window across different diplays. Wouldn't it be nice if xmove still actually worked for most applications? If you could just move your application across Xservers as you wished and didn't have to worry about temporary network outages killing you application? Well apparently Wayland can do that. So it seems to me that Wayland has potentially more to offer in terms of network transparency than X. It isn't done yet, so let's wait and see. Everything I've seen looks very promising.
Every release gets harder to customize for utility.
I heard that about GNOME 3.x, but then I actually got around to using it. It didn't have a user switch feature I liked. I just share a computer amongst my family so a fast user switch that listed users and didn't have to go through passwords is fine ... and no longer a provided option.
So I decided to see if there really was anything I could do about it via extensions. I spent a little time researching -- mostly learning javascript, which I didn't know at the time, and a tutorial on how to write extensions. From there is was surprisingly easy to write something that did exactly what I wanted, complete with polling DBUS for a user list. It was the sort of thing I never would have been able to do in GNOME2 if it lacked a feature I wanted: I would have had to hack and recompile code for applets or some such.
To be honest GNOME3 reminded me of the old FVWM days -- you could make it do pretty much anything you wanted if you were willing to roll up your sleeves a little and muck with configuration/scripting. There's a wealth of extreme customisability exposed, it just doesn't have pointy-clicky buttons (you know just like back in the FVWM days when you customised stuff with emacs and .fvwmrc).
It's not yet clear that Wayland will ever support displaying less than a full desktop across a network connection, and nothing the developers have said suggests otherwise.
I've seen a demo that forwarded individual windows, and moreover managed to move and duplicate the single window over a couple of displays -- like xmove, but working (xmove never worked well, and is unmaintained now), with bonus features. Wayland will have these things in due course.
If he is a US citizen it doesn't matter if he lives in the US or not; he's required to file, including all the foreign bank accounts (even if they are just usual bank accounts for your country of residence. Thus they are just as able to snoop for tax cheats.
Except for the first time this magicking of money out of thin air has a hard limit on the amount that can be made.
A hard limit on the amount? Yes. A hard limit on the value? Not even close. The amount of bitcoins has gone up slowly, but the value has ballooned (or bubbled if you like), and there's no limit on that bubble other than when the hoarders decide to cash out. At that point bitcoins will suffer a brief period of hyperinflation before the hoarding starts again and the whole process repeats.
How do you launch something when you don't know its name? Sit a newbie down in front of gnome panel and they'll never find all of the "hidden" programs.
The type to search applications feature searches more than just application names -- it searches a number of fields in the .desktop files, including application descriptions. Thus a search for "spreadsheet" will bring up LibreOffice Calc for example. Type what you want to do, and you'll find what you want ... that's the theory.
If I'm hanging out with some of my colleagues during conference breaks and chatting, and a female attendee walks in, my job and my 2 kids college fund/food supply/roof depends on me immediately maintaining a silence and uttering "Yes m'am" or "No ma'm" if and when appropriate, and that is all. There will be no conversation, exchanging views on squat, smiling etc. Its just gotten too dangerous to talk freely now.
Really? You're on such thin ice at your job that a comment and/or photo on the internet by some random person is going to get you fired? Either you suck at your job, your employer sucks, or you're making several mountain ranges out of a molehill.
Yes, someone lost their job in this incident, but given that only one of the two male developers involved were fired I presume there's rather more detail here that we're not privy to. Did Adria over-react? Yes. But let's be honest: all she really did was complain about some people on the internet. She didn't demand they be fired, she didn't try and DDoS their company, etc. She did a thoughtless thing without considering the consequences -- you know, kind of like loudly making crude jokes in mixed company is a thoughtless thing that doesn't consider the consequences. Over-reacting to her particular stupid mistake is just as stupid as her own over-reaction to the guys stupid mistake. How about we all just grow up and move on.
I got provided with 2 24" widescreen monitors, which gives pemty of screen real-estate, but makes for very wide anglew viewing. After a period of frustration with panning my eyes across the width of them I realised I could orient them vertically since they were on rotatable mounts. This turned out to be great -- the extra height fits more lines of code on screen at a time, and works nicely dual screen. I reccomend such a setup to anyone.
Bitcoin will probably last another few years and then it will choke on its own deflation. i.e. bitcoins will become so valuable that none of them will be in circulation.
I'm sure some bitcoins will remain in circulation, and they will get divided into ever finer fractions to provide the requisite liquidity to be a currency at the scale they wish to be. Then eventually the deflation will have gone far enough that a hoarder will decide to cash out. Then, when everyone has been trading in .0001 bitcoins, they'll sell their 1000 bitcoins for a lot of cash and bitcoins will suffer from a sudden massive bout of inflation as the money supply expands by orders of magnitude in an uncontrolled fashion. Then the deflation will kick in again until ...
All the bitcoin fanatics saying that deflation is good and inflation is the root of all evil ... they're missing the point: bitcoin is going to suffer from inflation, just a sudden unpredictable rampant uncontrolled bursts -- and that's the inflation that really sucks. Slow, small scale predictable controlled inflation can be accepted, large scale unpredictable uncontrolled inflation is what causes panics, crashes and economic mayhem.
Except right now it inflates at the rate of 25 coins every 10 minutes. So your statement seems to be wrong.
A currency that increases in size slower than the economy using that currency is still deflationary. Yes, there is an increasing amount of the currency available, but the demand for the currency outstrips that. Sure, bitcoin could be inflationary right now, presuming that it only ever traded for the same fixed value of goods and services it is used for right now. I don't think such a non-growth strategy is what bitcoin is after though.
I think what is missed here is Brook's maxim "build one to throw away". Sure, sometimes you need to actually build something to figure out what its for, or what it should be. That's an important step in engineering. The hard part is to take the next step and be willing to throw all of that away so you can build a good version. It's hard because often it took a large amount of work to get that first version doing all the things you slowly realised it needed to be able to do. Its worth it because, if you were paying attention, you also learned all the ways in which you built it badly the first time that can all be fixed with those difficulties in mind from the outset.
Throwing out working code is often bad. But if you start with the mentality that you are building it to throw away -- to learn what it can do, what it should do, and how best to structure things so it will do it -- then its easier to take that step and start again with the knowledge you gained.
A given layout is mandated by the journal, and putting the paper into that layout is done by the authors, not the publisher.
This is not usually the case in biomedical sciences - the layout is created by the (paid) journal editorial staff. However, it's totally unclear to me why this is even necessary, for several reasons:
In mathematics, however, everything is typeset in LaTeX, and the journals all provide a LaTeX style file, or document class for you to use. Papers are all formatted exactly as the journal wishes by the authors of the paper at the time of submission.
I agree that the model proposed in TFA doesn't work for all cases quite as easily, but in the math world it is definitely very practicable.
There is nothing that requires that Perl code be write-only.
No, there isn't ... but there's nothing that encourages it either. And perl has a elatively high congitive load in terms of all the many subtle features and idioms that you need to keep track of. If you're reading code that only uses a subset of idioms and features that you're comfortable with it's fine, but it is relatively easy to end up outside your comfort zone with other people's code unless you are deeply invested in the language. In this way it is much like C++.
In practice however a lot of Perl's reputation for unreadability is historical, and cultural. Back when Perl was more popular there was very much a culture of "neat hacks", JAPHs and perl golf. That meant that a lot of Perl code you saw in examples was often cryptic, or revelled in terse complexity.
These days I think Haskell has taken the crown for the culture that produces terse, complex and cryptic code. There's nothing in Haskell that means it has to be hard to read, but a culture of showing off with terseness has developed and ...
That's a codebook, not a one time pad. They are distinctly different. Code books are theoretically crackable given sufficient ciphertext and a model for the plaintext (e.g. English). In practice "sufficient" ciphertext is never going to happen. One time pads are uncrackable in theory. In practice mistakes can be made that make them not true one time pads and thus potentially crackable (but that require multiple messages using the same pad -- not the case here).
I've written a few articles lately and not run into any troubles. What kinds of articles are people writing?
He is mostly railing against deletionists, so what you need to do is look at articles nomiated for deletion on any given day and you'll get an idea. It's mostly stuff that's very obscure or out of place (in that it should probably be merged into a different article instead of having one all to itself). While I have some sympathy for anti-deletionists in that its not like Wikipedia is running out of storage space, mostly I find they are people who want to rule over their own little kingdom of obscure trivia. That is, they want to be the people they complain about (angry editors who firecely police and put down anyone who intervenes on articles), and are annoyed that no-one else has much interest in the small area of human knowledge over which they feel they command suitable authority.
I shudder to think of the cost and reliability to count handwritten ballots.
I have lived and voted in two different countries that used hand counted handwritten ballots. There were never any problems, counts were efficient, and reliability was high (very close electorates/ridings had recounts only to arrive at suffciently close to the same totals to give a very high degree of confidence in the counting process). While both countries had smaller populations than the US as a whole they had populations comparable to individual states, and I see no reason the systems wouldn't scale.
The first key is to have a completely independent organisation that runs the elections. But really look at any number of countries around the world that have reliable elections with handwritten ballots.
And Kylix was Borland's Hail Mary shot as Delphi was spiralling down the drain. What's worse, it wasn't native linux, but a kludge of QT and Wine, and yet still didn't provide backwards compatability to Delphi.
Kylix didn't fail because it was for linux. Kylix was doomed from the start because it was a hastily put together lifeboat from the sinking ship of Delphi.
Detailing some nice fails on Google's part in mapping.
Well yes, but the fact that they managed to come up with 10 failures for Google maps over the many years its been available, while that tumblr blog has hundreds of comparable failures (misplaced cities, useless directions, completely incorrect coastlines, invalid borders, all as bad as what was listed in the page you linked) in a few days says something. Mapping is hard, there are enourmous amounts of data, and mistakes will be made. Apple seems to have made an order of magnitude more and are being ridiculed for it.
Also another thing that seems really stupid to complain about is flat satellite data warped in 3D mode. You are getting something you could not see before on mobile devices
Except Nokia already has this, and their 3D version reportedly doesn't have anywhere near this range of issues. Again, 3D projection and stitching together photos is very hard. Bit Apple has made an order of magnitude more errors than their competitors. Consequently they are being ridiculed for this.
I thought you might have taken the time to look things up, but apparently not. Let's recap then; Euclid proved that there are infinitely many primes in approx. 300 BC. The proof is very straightforward and has been repeated many times. See here for a canonical example. But wait, there's more. Bored mathematicians have found other proofs, usually perverse ones for amusement value. See, for example Goldbach's proof, or Furstenberg's topological proof.
Perhaps your going to say that those are just a touch hand-wavy and not "derived directly from mathematical laws". That would be a mistake, but we can cover that too: here is a proof that is conveniently completely machine verifiable and traceable back to formal axioms -- specifically first order predicate calculus and Zermelo Frankel set theory (we don't even need the axiom of choice!).
There are infinitely many primes. But don't trust me -- work through the metamath proof in all the gory details if you really still don't believe.
While it's believed the number of prime numbers themselves are infinite (it's not easy proving anything in mathematics with the word 'infinite' in it)
Yes, if only we could prove there is an infinite number of oprimes rather than just believing, presumably from some famous named conjecture. I'm sure any such proof would require extremely deep and difficult mathematics and not be something that is used in textbooks as a first example of mathematical proof as copied straight out of Euclid.
Ehm, isn't there xmove that lets you move X11 apps from one X11 server to another?
Well presuming you want something that had development discontinued in 1997 and has been essentially unmaintained ever since ...
Even the man pages have strong warnings that xmove is old, unmaintained, and not guaranteed to work at all.
No, he's saying that the vast profits that Apple successfully made by being the first mover in this field is already plenty of incentive the invest in such "risky" endeavours -- Apple has earned well above and beyond any research costs -- so we probably don't need to grant special monopoly rights for an extra 15 years just to get companies to invest in innovative research.
In the end, I think with GNOME 3 we need to emphasize design coherency and slickness - what is different and better, and that actually is more important than being 100% sure we perfectly meet everybody's workflow.
That's stunning... "design coherency and slickness" is more important than a good workflow!
No, he said design coherency and slickness was more important than meeting everybody's workflow perfectly. That is, if you can make a coherent system that has a good workflow for 90% of users, don't go breaking the consistency and coherency for the 10% that have a wide variety of weird and unique workflows. And I don't think that's a bad plan. Thyere are a large number of DEs out there for Linux, so if you are a unique and special snowflake with a need for a very particular workflow you can use one of those. The reality is that the last 10% of workflows can be incredibly diverse and incredibly difficult to cater to well without ending up with a complex mess. So perhaps a good solution is, instead of providing a hobbled workflow for that 10% as you try and shoehorn it into the existing system, cater to the 90% and let the 10% use specialised tools that can create excellent workflows for their more rareified uses.
You need a certain amount of ongoing trade to keep liquidity in the market -- otherwise it is hard to get money to where it needs to be for new projects, new ventures, etc. Look at it this way: a large part of the economic problems back in 2008 and early 2009 were due to a "credit crunch" where banks were unable or unwilling to loan money; this resulted in liquidity drying up and businesses facing severe difficulties due to the uncertainty of whether they could get money on hand when they needed it (for example, to make payroll at the end of the month). Without sufficient liquidity business stagnates. This is why deflation can be so bad.
Dol Guldur is barely hinted at in the book in just a couple of lines I think. Given the shortness of the book in terms of actual time that passes, the council to deal with Dol Guldur would have taken place after Bilbo was safely back home, the most Gandalf could have done in the short time he was away from the party would be to investigate the necromancer and discover who he might be.
Yes, but if you were to expand the point of view of the Hobbit a little bit, and include a little more material such as Gandalf going to Dol Guldur etc. then you leave yourself well setup for a third film with Bilbo at home and the council waging war on the necromancer. Of course that's not to say that's what they've done, but for now I'm willing to give them the benfit of the doubt and wait and see what they've actually done. As it stands The Hobbit is a very narrow story that leads into LoTR but doesn't really sit well with it; by having a LoTR prequel that expands upon the Hobbit with further material from the Appendices of LoTR I could imagine a much better lead in to the LoTR trilogy being made. Let's hope that's what they're aiming for.