No need to navigate to a website, find an installation proggy.
No, you just need to ensure your repository has the software you want to install.
Linux installs like these are powerful as long as everything is set up properly.
It's a bit like having a nice database set up with metadata and dependency information across packages and everything simply there, ready to go. Unfortunately, you don't always have all software you want in that tidy database. And once it's not in that database, you need to look up and add a new repository, and before that find which one that have your software. And then you're on a bit thinner ice. For Windows, there are no concerns like these. You go to the site and download the software package, run the installer, and then you're done. No worries you might have to edit some text file or configure a "Software Manager" to find the software and its metadata to download (no need to even involve the equivalent of Synaptic in the first place!), and no worries you might be using the wrong repository.
I wonder if it'll ever find life, and what the scenario in that case would look like.
Maybe floating down from the skies with a note inside... "Looks like you lost something, but jeez, it was hard to track you down with more planets than its schematic shows!"
The Moon should be considered a planet: Earth - Moon functions as a double planet (barycenter far removed from the center of mass of either one; orbits of either one around the Sun are significantly distorted by the other; impossible to understand the features and history of either without taking into account the tidal influence caused by the other).
But the barycenter isn't located outside the Earth though?
I disagree with most of their proposals, but I liked their binary planet idea.
I wish there was more details than this though, because with that information, all asteroids are planets.
And what's with Plutons being beyond Neptune? So our star system is the only one in the universe to ever have plutons? Interesting...
Not to mention the arbitrary planet categories. What's a giant planet per definition?:-p
I hope they aren't being as unscientific as that, because then we'll never know what to call barely any celestial bodies in the universe orbiting stars.
Microosoft's figures sounds about right from a CSS standard report I saw elsewhere. It indicated something like ~60% for IE, approx. 90% for Firefox, and most for Opera. Unfortunately I don't recall the URL, so that's the sloppy figures you'll get from me.;-)
Of the more modern western societies, why do then Americans specifically fall flat in understanding science? I don't believe in geographically bound "stupidity", so in that case there should be another reason for this.
... in case they wish to prevail well. I'm from Sweden, among the top 5 "evolution believers" or something in that list, and the church has become radically less popular in recent years, and they're losing ground to the point of a majority of people pointing fingers at the church if they'd think of condemning e.g homosexuality. They're under pressure, and most are probably only members of the church to celebrate traditions, not out of belief. As for me, I think it's about time people start questioning the beliefs of Middle Eastern prophets around 2,000 years ago. Maybe they weren't right and trying to gain power and influence by attempting to convince people they were spoken to by God, and spreading their scriptures to broaden their reigns. Food for thought. They were still human, back then, and employed human psychology.
are you opposed to the payment for digital content then?
Why should he? That's a rather unrelated question. You'd still pay for something if you wished to support an author, right? Is that not why we pay for content today?
And of course also to pay for the bandwidth. One of the points with it is to reduce the bandwidth loss one will see in e.g. TOR, which comes with absolutely no guarantees of high bandwidth proxies, and is actually very slow for many P2P services. But solving that problem costs a lot of money. On the other hand, that makes this solution centralized, which opens up a large box of security issues on its own, like requiring a trusted single third party, additionally easily targettable by an organization.
Parent is right, while it offers some protection (although this is assuming the trusted company is actually trustworthy, a huge disadvantage compared to decentralized solutions like TOR) and maybe even good performance, this is a VPN tunnel from you to an ISP that relays your requests to the big web in totally unencrypted form, not a Darknet. There is also no trust involved here; they let anyone who sign up use it.
A Darknet is more like an encrypted network that is supposed to be very hard to penetrate, and where unencrypted requests and information don't leak from it. The new versions of Freenet are better example of Darknets, and the pre-0.7 version of Freenet is like one really big Darknet, just without any trust involved.
This concept lacks even more features of Darknets than that.
Hmm, related to the subscriber register, I see right now that to trial the service until the election, you need to provide a: Name (which I suppose one could fake.. I wonder if there's any implications for that), any username of choice, a mail address (that can of course be quite anonymous or hard to reach; plenty of those exist), and password. Nothing about street addresses, or even country. The other thing is then probably IP address logs being kept, or not...? Not sure here. But I can clearly see what they're talking about now about their registered details, that one can also change at any time.
What do this law [of Swedish electronic communication; 2003:389] say when it comes what Swedish government agencies or others request access to the information protected by RELAKKS?
When it comes to Swedish law enforcement agencies, RELAKKS has the same rights and obligations as a regular ISP with two important differences.
1. RELAKKS uses advance payments, which implies RELAKKS does not need to follow a traditional subscriber register. This is of great importance due to what kinds of customer information RELAKKS can disclose.
If Swedish agencies can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have legal support in requesting the user information from RELAKKS (the penalty has to in this case be greater than fines), RELAKKS need to disclose the subscriber details you as a user has submitted.
2. RELAKKS does not save customer details beyond those you have given yourself when signing up for the service (you can also change these details as long as you're a paying customer). If you don't proceed using the service, RELAKKS will delete your user account.
The details Swedish agencies can request beyond user account details (see above) are so called traffic information. These are protected by a much stronger legal protection. To disclose these, the crime needs to have a penalty of at least jailtime in two years.
I understand it that it's business and laws as usual here too, of course, but if they're enforced of leaving out user details, I wonder what exact differences their unconventional subscriber register has compared to a regular one. They don't seem to go into detail of that, and I'd guess that is the most interesting part here.
Do they want a part of your ashes after cremation too?:-p
RIAA's actions consistently shows the world some corporations show absolutely no emotions. RIAA is ready to walk over corpses, quite literally, to cash in what's to them a ridiculous sum of money. I wonder what's more scary -- this action alone, or the fact that actual people make these decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you just need to ensure your repository has the software you want to install.
Linux installs like these are powerful as long as everything is set up properly.
It's a bit like having a nice database set up with metadata and dependency information across packages and everything simply there, ready to go. Unfortunately, you don't always have all software you want in that tidy database. And once it's not in that database, you need to look up and add a new repository, and before that find which one that have your software. And then you're on a bit thinner ice. For Windows, there are no concerns like these. You go to the site and download the software package, run the installer, and then you're done. No worries you might have to edit some text file or configure a "Software Manager" to find the software and its metadata to download (no need to even involve the equivalent of Synaptic in the first place!), and no worries you might be using the wrong repository.
"there's no 3D, no good audio etc"
These two are often not an issue in corporate environments though.
Sure, some exceptions depending on what kind of work you do, but still exceptions.
Here's some easily digestable biographies on Wikipedia's "simple english" branch: ... and more specifically, e.g. Physicists.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People
Not many, but still some.
I wonder if it'll ever find life, and what the scenario in that case would look like.
Maybe floating down from the skies with a note inside...
"Looks like you lost something, but jeez, it was hard to track you down with more planets than its schematic shows!"
The Moon should be considered a planet: Earth - Moon functions as a double planet (barycenter far removed from the center of mass of either one; orbits of either one around the Sun are significantly distorted by the other; impossible to understand the features and history of either without taking into account the tidal influence caused by the other).
But the barycenter isn't located outside the Earth though?
I disagree with most of their proposals, but I liked their binary planet idea.
all asteroids are planets.
Sorry, I mean of course, all large enough asteroids to be "rounded". E.g. asteroid Vesta would be classified as a planet too then?
I wish there was more details than this though, because with that information, all asteroids are planets.
:-p
And what's with Plutons being beyond Neptune? So our star system is the only one in the universe to ever have plutons? Interesting...
Not to mention the arbitrary planet categories. What's a giant planet per definition?
I hope they aren't being as unscientific as that, because then we'll never know what to call barely any celestial bodies in the universe orbiting stars.
Ah damn, forgot "y" is a vowel in my mother tongue but not in English :-p
ooo!! :-(
:-)
y o e ooa?
Microosoft's figures sounds about right from a CSS standard report I saw elsewhere. ;-)
It indicated something like ~60% for IE, approx. 90% for Firefox, and most for Opera.
Unfortunately I don't recall the URL, so that's the sloppy figures you'll get from me.
Internet Explorer always had excellent standard compliance... of their own ones.
Of the more modern western societies, why do then Americans specifically fall flat in understanding science?
I don't believe in geographically bound "stupidity", so in that case there should be another reason for this.
... in case they wish to prevail well. I'm from Sweden, among the top 5 "evolution believers" or something in that list, and the church has become radically less popular in recent years, and they're losing ground to the point of a majority of people pointing fingers at the church if they'd think of condemning e.g homosexuality. They're under pressure, and most are probably only members of the church to celebrate traditions, not out of belief. As for me, I think it's about time people start questioning the beliefs of Middle Eastern prophets around 2,000 years ago. Maybe they weren't right and trying to gain power and influence by attempting to convince people they were spoken to by God, and spreading their scriptures to broaden their reigns. Food for thought. They were still human, back then, and employed human psychology.
Why should he? That's a rather unrelated question. You'd still pay for something if you wished to support an author, right? Is that not why we pay for content today?
And of course also to pay for the bandwidth. One of the points with it is to reduce the bandwidth loss one will see in e.g. TOR, which comes with absolutely no guarantees of high bandwidth proxies, and is actually very slow for many P2P services. But solving that problem costs a lot of money. On the other hand, that makes this solution centralized, which opens up a large box of security issues on its own, like requiring a trusted single third party, additionally easily targettable by an organization.
Parent is right, while it offers some protection (although this is assuming the trusted company is actually trustworthy, a huge disadvantage compared to decentralized solutions like TOR) and maybe even good performance, this is a VPN tunnel from you to an ISP that relays your requests to the big web in totally unencrypted form, not a Darknet. There is also no trust involved here; they let anyone who sign up use it.
A Darknet is more like an encrypted network that is supposed to be very hard to penetrate, and where unencrypted requests and information don't leak from it. The new versions of Freenet are better example of Darknets, and the pre-0.7 version of Freenet is like one really big Darknet, just without any trust involved.
This concept lacks even more features of Darknets than that.
Hmm, related to the subscriber register, I see right now that to trial the service until the election, you need to provide a: Name (which I suppose one could fake.. I wonder if there's any implications for that), any username of choice, a mail address (that can of course be quite anonymous or hard to reach; plenty of those exist), and password. Nothing about street addresses, or even country. The other thing is then probably IP address logs being kept, or not...? Not sure here. But I can clearly see what they're talking about now about their registered details, that one can also change at any time.
I understand it that it's business and laws as usual here too, of course, but if they're enforced of leaving out user details, I wonder what exact differences their unconventional subscriber register has compared to a regular one. They don't seem to go into detail of that, and I'd guess that is the most interesting part here.
No, they won't.
And even more ironic is that Bush doesn't have a blog, but this guy does. :-)
Hehe, I started thinking of Necromancers when reading this title.
Do they want a part of your ashes after cremation too? :-p
RIAA's actions consistently shows the world some corporations show absolutely no emotions. RIAA is ready to walk over corpses, quite literally, to cash in what's to them a ridiculous sum of money. I wonder what's more scary -- this action alone, or the fact that actual people make these decisions.
However.
OpenGL Now Natively Supported in Windows Vista
On Slashdot, you're reminded of stuff that matters a full year in advance!
Thanks!
I don't see him "missing" anything.
You're saying they're most cost efficient in specialized power systems, but once again, that is not Dell's primary market.
All you're saying is that Apple has got Dell beat in a market Dell is not focusing in.