My P900 has >72 hours standby time and does everything I'd use an IPAQ for including note taking, voice recorder, web browsing (Opera), email, games, calendar, address book.
some users think they are secure because they download linux binaries from all over the internet instead of windows binaries.
Secure is not feeling cosy, because of a decision you made last year, secure is the feeling you get a bit at a time when you patched another flaw and closed another hole.
If you for($i=0;$i$dummy) {
$object=&$array_of_objects[$key];... }
Because we have been permitted to see the growth and maturing process of PHP we see lots of weirdisms some of which are not ironed out till PHP5. This also means that in PHP4 (and evebn more so in PHP3) there are a few clumsy idioms like the one I gave above that need to be used but which really ought to have a more compact representation.
Some others are (remember that PHP arrays are ordered):
1) get the first item out of an array as a reference. Of course the first item might not be $attay[0] and for me it often isn't:
$value=&$array[array_shift(array_keys($array))]; but it is less clear
Extending use of an array from numeric-only keys to also string keys and NULL keys can often be the natural solution to extended functionality (for me at least) so it is convenient for myuse of arrays to contain as few assumptions as possible.
I say this, it is much easier to maintain RPM packages with their single.spec file than it is.deb packages with their whole debian directory.
I also prefer the RPM principle of "pristine sources" which try to make it impossible to build a package from manually hacked sources, you need to provide a seperate patch file.
dpkg and apt stuff let you hack the un-tar'd source and then happily build from it. If you cant seeANY haarm in this then you don;'t understand the value of being able to build from pristine sources and having packager patches kept seperate. I know I do, because of that I've easily been able to manage my own security updates. I know.deb best practice is to follow this, but the RPM tool tries to enforce it.
Current is oftenmore important than stable where "stable" is stable beyond the practical life of the hardware and "stable" wont install on new machines.
Fossils are stable too, but not much good as meat.
As is pointed outm "stable" is just a label though, and although calling something less stable "stable" doesn't make it so, and you can selectively pick pages from "testing" and do your own security fixes.
I think security fixesfor testing, and easier pinning control in dselect would solve most of it.
(I know dselect has been superceded but I can never remember thename of the new program and I find it harder to use than dselect anyway [and that was hard enough])
With tortoise CVS I have found, the only additional training needed to get fair CVS use from team members is that merging clashes takes time and careful thought and can't be done automatically.
I highly recommend tortoise cvs - hey I use tortoise cvs under windows on a samba share from my colinux box (one day there will be linux CVS shell integration); and I use eclipse to edit the files.
Aye, I'm having problems with gnome too. I'm running Mepis updated to latest deb packages with FreeNX from Kalyxo and gnome keeps complaining.
If I get a seperate character console onto the same machine I can kill some of the gnome processes and then it carries on and starts up gnome, but not very well.
Other people have had gnome startup problems related to audio; my gnome box is actually colinux under winXP therefore no audio either; maybe related?
I also can't get freeNX audio forwarding to work, I think its because it uses one of the esd programs to tap the audio stream, but as colinux has no real audio hardware esd won't stay running so the esd tap tools don't work.
I reckon there is an exponential drop off for bug discovery in large code bases; as well as measure of bugs-per-lines-of-code for project types.
I reckon that combining these figures over time will give you an estimated number-of-bugs-yet-to-be-found along with the number of hours it will take to find the first certain-proportion of them.
(And being exponential it will that just as long to find the next certain-proportion of whats left.)
I'm guessing all of this, but it seems reasonable to be able to predict bugs left in a large project.
I just thought I'd mention it; sometimes GPL responsibilities aren't fully understood; giving away GPL binaries for without charge free doesn't fulfil GPL requirements.
If they don't want it fixed badly enough to bring it, I don't want to fix it that badly.
For widows I'll come out and fix it and close friends.
Once good friend bestowed some very nice chocolate truffles and an enormous tub of jelly bellies; needless to say he is top priority NOT because he "bought me", but because I know he appreciates it and won't take ne for granted.
Science and religion have been at polar opposites since civilization began.
Well they obviously are now in your mind.
Religion was the first science.
Religion has only opposed science when it was used politically, so I guess you could say that politics and science are opposed.
Even cold-war "science" was used politically often against the benefit of real science.
So I think that your statement is only true where politics and domination become religion.
I don't see the Dali Llama opposing science any, or any of the majority liberal moslems. I recall the moslems were great scientists in their time whilst retaining their religion.
Cultural evidence may well be based on incorrect interpretations of data but until we examine the cultural evidence (and there is a lot) any conclusion on the "maybes" of cultural evidence may also be based on incorrect data.
If dragons are/were real, I do not need to provide any physical evidence; nor do I contest they are/were real.
I do point out the dangers of dismissing evidences individually when en-mass they indicate at least that there is something to be investigated.
I think historical anthropologists would have a good time working with your definition and requirements of "physical evidence".
The first questions which perhaps can be answered after examiniation of folklore and cultural evidence is "how many kinds of "they" are there?"
Is a Sumerian tablet physical evidence? What do you mean by "creature" and what do you mean by "know of"? (Don't answer these questions).
I certainly agree that we don't know of the existance of dragons, but that isn't the same as saying we know there is no existance of dragons.
I see no need to dismiss the evidence because it is not conclusive, and I see no need to come to a conclusion without conclusive evidence.
I've had to clean up the computers of people who deleted files that they didn't need (but windows did need), I've made similar hasty mistakes myself based on the best knowledge I had at the time.
I actually think you're talking rubbish, I'm only sorry you don't know it.
There is an appreciable difference between the widespread historical cultural evidence of dragons and modern anecdotal evidence of UFO's.
To say that "myths are simply myths" is to use Occams razor for a lot more than it was intended for.
I'm glad you recognize that you are assuming dragons never existed out of myths and legends.
I do not have enough evidence to come to an actual conclusion, but I do have these further questions:
What is it that each culture means by what we now see referred to as "dragons"?
What similarities and significant differences exist within-culture and inter-culture about dragons?
At what points of history did the recognized attributes of dragons change significantly?
No doubt careful application of Occams razor could remove the need for me to ask thes question, but I think knowledge of the answers could help me wield Occam's razor in a more effective search for truth, rather than a search for simplicity.
Until there is evidence of such a creature, then you cannot say they exist. said saider, conveniently ignoring the large and widespread cultural evidence.
If you do as the parent says and "use it as a base" and "change enough so you aren't blatantly copying it" then you are still copying it and restricted in distrution by copyright law.
The GPL may grant you other privileges if you abide by its conditions. (Though AFAIK most PERL is licensed under the PERL Artisitic License which is more permissive than the GPL.)
The GPL specifies that if you make a derivative work, it has to be released under the GPL.
Not true. The GPL specifies that if you DISTRIBUTE the original OR a derivatice work, that it has to be according to the terms of the GPL. Distributed derivative works must be under the terms of the GPL. If you are not entitled to distribute the derivative under the GPL (other peoples copyright code, patents, etc) then you are not allowed to distribute the derivative work at all as nothing else permits you to what copyright is denying you.
The main arguments have been over what constitutes a distribution and what constitutes a derivative work.
For his last term bush may have been haunted by doubts that he was never truly the choice of the people.
At least this time he knows he is.
I have to say the MSNBC headline was confusing: "Kerry calls Bush to concede election" - I interpreted this as "Kerry calls on bush to concede election" mean Kerry asked bush to concede.
Non-creationists rarely take the trouble to understand creationism any more than they think they need for a superficial debunking and therefore do the whole world a dis-server.
Many christians also fail to study their own sources.
6 thousand years is supposed to be the approximate time since Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of eden and made mortal.
There is NOTHING in the bible to indicate 1) how long they were in the garden of eden as immortals before this point [hence 6k is rubbish]
2) nothing PLAIN about how long each of the six creative periods ("days") were or even if they were the same length of time as eachother.
All I've done here is show that the parents posts debunking is groundless.
Creationists don't all believe the same things, and that grouping them together and debunking some combined creationist idea may not be equivalent to debunking any particular creationist idea at all.
For instance I believe in God and the creation account as given in Genesis - buts a pretty brief account, heh? Not rich on the details. I also believe God is a perfect glorified man with a physical body. But then again many humanists hope that man will one day be perfect and immortal, and have the power to create worlds. Whats wrong with saying it has already happened?
Slashdot Mirror
My P900 has >72 hours standby time and does everything I'd use an IPAQ for including note taking, voice recorder, web browsing (Opera), email, games, calendar, address book.
Oh, and its a phone.
Sam
some users think they are secure because they download linux binaries from all over the internet instead of windows binaries.
Secure is not feeling cosy, because of a decision you made last year, secure is the feeling you get a bit at a time when you patched another flaw and closed another hole.
Sam
If you for($i=0;$i$dummy) { ...
a y[$key];
;
$object=&$array_of_objects[$key];
}
Because we have been permitted to see the growth and maturing process of PHP we see lots of weirdisms some of which are not ironed out till PHP5. This also means that in PHP4 (and evebn more so in PHP3) there are a few clumsy idioms like the one I gave above that need to be used but which really ought to have a more compact representation.
Some others are (remember that PHP arrays are ordered):
1) get the first item out of an array as a reference. Of course the first item might not be $attay[0] and for me it often isn't:
reset($array);
$key=key($array);
$value=&$arr
Actually we can do this ibn one line with
$value=&$array[array_shift(array_keys($array))]
but it is less clear
Extending use of an array from numeric-only keys to also string keys and NULL keys can often be the natural solution to extended functionality (for me at least) so it is convenient for myuse of arrays to contain as few assumptions as possible.
Sam
An RPM is a cpio archive, see :
.spec file than it is .deb packages with their whole debian directory.
.deb best practice is to follow this, but the RPM tool tries to enforce it.
man cpio
I say this, it is much easier to maintain RPM packages with their single
I also prefer the RPM principle of "pristine sources" which try to make it impossible to build a package from manually hacked sources, you need to provide a seperate patch file.
dpkg and apt stuff let you hack the un-tar'd source and then happily build from it. If you cant seeANY haarm in this then you don;'t understand the value of being able to build from pristine sources and having packager patches kept seperate. I know I do, because of that I've easily been able to manage my own security updates. I know
Sam
Sam
You make a good point.
Current is oftenmore important than stable where "stable" is stable beyond the practical life of the hardware and "stable" wont install on new machines.
Fossils are stable too, but not much good as meat.
As is pointed outm "stable" is just a label though, and although calling something less stable "stable" doesn't make it so, and you can selectively pick pages from "testing" and do your own security fixes.
I think security fixesfor testing, and easier pinning control in dselect would solve most of it.
(I know dselect has been superceded but I can never remember thename of the new program and I find it harder to use than dselect anyway [and that was hard enough])
Sam
Sam
You should always use foreach when looping over an array in php.
It makes me faint to think of you doing otherwise.
Sam
hardly.
I note using different variable differentiators was up for big debate again with the perl 6 exegesis and apocolypses.
Sam
php arrays are not wishy washy, they are powerful.
In PHP there is no difference between a hash and a numerical array, its the same thing.
try this:
$a[5]="five";
$a[0]="zero";
foreach($a as $k=>$v) echo "$k=$v
\n";
and you'll get:
5=five
0=zero
I like em, a php array is like an ORDERED perl hash, and you may be interested to know that PHP style arrays are regularly requested for perl.
Sam
With tortoise CVS I have found, the only additional training needed to get fair CVS use from team members is that merging clashes takes time and careful thought and can't be done automatically.
I highly recommend tortoise cvs - hey I use tortoise cvs under windows on a samba share from my colinux box (one day there will be linux CVS shell integration); and I use eclipse to edit the files.
Sam
Aye, I'm having problems with gnome too.
I'm running Mepis updated to latest deb packages with FreeNX from Kalyxo and gnome keeps complaining.
If I get a seperate character console onto the same machine I can kill some of the gnome processes and then it carries on and starts up gnome, but not very well.
Other people have had gnome startup problems related to audio; my gnome box is actually colinux under winXP therefore no audio either; maybe related?
I also can't get freeNX audio forwarding to work, I think its because it uses one of the esd programs to tap the audio stream, but as colinux has no real audio hardware esd won't stay running so the esd tap tools don't work.
Sam
I reckon there is an exponential drop off for bug discovery in large code bases; as well as measure of bugs-per-lines-of-code for project types.
I reckon that combining these figures over time will give you an estimated number-of-bugs-yet-to-be-found along with the number of hours it will take to find the first certain-proportion of them.
(And being exponential it will that just as long to find the next certain-proportion of whats left.)
I'm guessing all of this, but it seems reasonable to be able to predict bugs left in a large project.
Sam
Has anybody had trouble getting the source to simply mepis?
FSF Europe mailing list had a complaint about this recently.
I just thought I'd mention it; sometimes GPL responsibilities aren't fully understood; giving away GPL binaries for without charge free doesn't fulfil GPL requirements.
Sam
If people want their PC fixing they can
1) bring it to me
2) I'll fix it when I'm ready
If they don't want it fixed badly enough to bring it, I don't want to fix it that badly.
For widows I'll come out and fix it and close friends.
Once good friend bestowed some very nice chocolate truffles and an enormous tub of jelly bellies; needless to say he is top priority NOT because he "bought me", but because I know he appreciates it and won't take ne for granted.
Sam
Science and religion have been at polar opposites since civilization began.
Well they obviously are now in your mind.
Religion was the first science.
Religion has only opposed science when it was used politically, so I guess you could say that politics and science are opposed.
Even cold-war "science" was used politically often against the benefit of real science.
So I think that your statement is only true where politics and domination become religion.
I don't see the Dali Llama opposing science any, or any of the majority liberal moslems. I recall the moslems were great scientists in their time whilst retaining their religion.
Sam
You want to wake the public conscience?
Use the same tools that put it to sleep effectively.
Remember that Benejamin Franklin appreciated the need to be clear and concise, when argueing that non-property owners should be able to vote, he said:
"If I have a donkey - I can vote; If I don't have a donkey - I can't vote. The vote represents not me, but the donkey" (Or maybe he said ass).
My new one is:
"Land of the free - where it's illegal to skip commercials"
Come up with stuff like that, and a reference to more info, and fly post like mad day and night as you go to work, college, eat at McD's.
Why not start a flyposting site where you provide PDF fliers for folk.
Please DON'T have the same site be used in the "more info" references, you don't want to be er.. "closed down" so easily.
Sam
Cultural evidence may well be based on incorrect interpretations of data but until we examine the cultural evidence (and there is a lot) any conclusion on the "maybes" of cultural evidence may also be based on incorrect data.
If dragons are/were real, I do not need to provide any physical evidence; nor do I contest they are/were real.
I do point out the dangers of dismissing evidences individually when en-mass they indicate at least that there is something to be investigated.
I think historical anthropologists would have a good time working with your definition and requirements of "physical evidence".
The first questions which perhaps can be answered after examiniation of folklore and cultural evidence is "how many kinds of "they" are there?"
Is a Sumerian tablet physical evidence? What do you mean by "creature" and what do you mean by "know of"? (Don't answer these questions).
I certainly agree that we don't know of the existance of dragons, but that isn't the same as saying we know there is no existance of dragons.
I see no need to dismiss the evidence because it is not conclusive, and I see no need to come to a conclusion without conclusive evidence.
I've had to clean up the computers of people who deleted files that they didn't need (but windows did need), I've made similar hasty mistakes myself based on the best knowledge I had at the time.
Sam
I actually think you're talking rubbish, I'm only sorry you don't know it.
There is an appreciable difference between the widespread historical cultural evidence of dragons and modern anecdotal evidence of UFO's.
To say that "myths are simply myths" is to use Occams razor for a lot more than it was intended for.
I'm glad you recognize that you are assuming dragons never existed out of myths and legends.
I do not have enough evidence to come to an actual conclusion, but I do have these further questions:
What is it that each culture means by what we now see referred to as "dragons"?
What similarities and significant differences exist within-culture and inter-culture about dragons?
At what points of history did the recognized attributes of dragons change significantly?
No doubt careful application of Occams razor could remove the need for me to ask thes question, but I think knowledge of the answers could help me wield Occam's razor in a more effective search for truth, rather than a search for simplicity.
Sam
Until there is evidence of such a creature, then you cannot say they exist. said saider, conveniently ignoring the large and widespread cultural evidence.
If you do as the parent says and "use it as a base" and "change enough so you aren't blatantly copying it" then you are still copying it and restricted in distrution by copyright law.
The GPL may grant you other privileges if you abide by its conditions. (Though AFAIK most PERL is licensed under the PERL Artisitic License which is more permissive than the GPL.)
Sam
The GPL specifies that if you make a derivative work, it has to be released under the GPL.
Not true. The GPL specifies that if you DISTRIBUTE the original OR a derivatice work, that it has to be according to the terms of the GPL. Distributed derivative works must be under the terms of the GPL. If you are not entitled to distribute the derivative under the GPL (other peoples copyright code, patents, etc) then you are not allowed to distribute the derivative work at all as nothing else permits you to what copyright is denying you.
The main arguments have been over what constitutes a distribution and what constitutes a derivative work.
Sam
For his last term bush may have been haunted by doubts that he was never truly the choice of the people.
At least this time he knows he is.
I have to say the MSNBC headline was confusing:
"Kerry calls Bush to concede election" - I interpreted this as "Kerry calls on bush to concede election" mean Kerry asked bush to concede.
Sam
rm -Rf / removes all the files mounted on the file system. format c:\ rewrites a new file allocation table.
/
/
rm -Rf
attempts to remove all files mounted on all file systems, not just files mounted on the file system (whatever that means).
I had a friend do an rm -fr
once, only to find that unknown to him his windows filesystem had also been mounted and was being deleted.
Sam
If slashdot is stale, no doubt the new hangout place is kept secret to keep the wannabes that supposedly infect slashdot from following.
:-)
Wonder why no-one told me...
Sam
Mirror dot only shows the first page
Grr
Non-creationists rarely take the trouble to understand creationism any more than they think they need for a superficial debunking and therefore do the whole world a dis-server.
Many christians also fail to study their own sources.
6 thousand years is supposed to be the approximate time since Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of eden and made mortal.
There is NOTHING in the bible to indicate
1) how long they were in the garden of eden as immortals before this point
[hence 6k is rubbish]
2) nothing PLAIN about how long each of the six creative periods ("days") were or even if they were the same length of time as eachother.
All I've done here is show that the parents posts debunking is groundless.
Creationists don't all believe the same things, and that grouping them together and debunking some combined creationist idea may not be equivalent to debunking any particular creationist idea at all.
For instance I believe in God and the creation account as given in Genesis - buts a pretty brief account, heh? Not rich on the details. I also believe God is a perfect glorified man with a physical body. But then again many humanists hope that man will one day be perfect and immortal, and have the power to create worlds. Whats wrong with saying it has already happened?
Sam