That's why it looks like an operating system. The important thing here is to recognize what an operating system isn't - scroll bars are not part of the operating system. Web browsers are not part of the operating system. Indeed, some kernel modules may not be part of the operating system. Only software which is concerned with creating an abstract interface to the computer hardware.
By that definition (which I accept) it would also include the basic libraries that provide access to system calls, and Xlib to provide access to the accelerated and high resolution graphics.
An operating system is a piece of software that presents an abstract interface to running applications that is identical regardless of the details of the hardware it is running on.
Considering what programming is - describing how to do things - its not plausable that an automatic way of doing it will ever be developed, at least not for anything interesting. If you can do it automatically, its not really programming.
To put it another way, programming is inherantly less automatable than the tasks that are being programmed. As long as there are activities that can't be done automatically, there will be a superset of programs to do those things that can't be written automatically.
There are amusing logs of people talking to Eliza like programs that are clearly convinced that they are talking to a person. Particularly when the program is set up to flirt rather than psychoanalyze. It sort of requires a more careful statement of what the Turing test is. It doesn't just mean `can fool some bozo out there.'
There is still no way of knowing what kernel and modules are present just because what you are running is called Linux. So there can never be such a thing as Linux compatible hardware. Furthermore, if you think user space code doesn't affect hardware compatibility you should check out the SANE project, which is scanner support in 100% user space code.
I can't see any well defined procedure by which you could verify ``Linux compatibility.'' The fact that the modem still doesn't work does suck, though.
and it isn't me. Some channels are in, some are out. Is that censorship? How is it different from the V-chip, besides that fact that I can turn the V-chip off?
If your kids are young enough (between 3 and 6) you can perform your own experiment. Let them watch "The Shining", you'll experience emotional disturbances until dawn.
Bullshit. Its about providing more choices. Its about providing tools for parenting. Who gives a fuck if kids can't watch certain channels? They can just go read a book.
This is a truly ridiculous argument, like TV and books are an either/or proposition. Its the same as saying that everyone who uses a computer is an anti-social geek. And the idea that you should sit next to your kid every minute the TV is on is equally preposterous.
You say that restricting the channels my television will display violates my childrens rights. Isn't not owning a television restricting their rights even further?
The owners of my cable system get to decide exactly what does and doesn't get broadcast. Why are their rights more important than mine?
Ok, so your system isn't good enough to tell the difference. What if you someday get a better system? I hope you're not throwing the CDs out. This test isn't about whether MP3s are ``mostly ok'', its about whether you should throw your CDs out after you encode them. And you shouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why it looks like an operating system. The important thing here is to recognize what an operating system isn't - scroll bars are not part of the operating system. Web browsers are not part of the operating system. Indeed, some kernel modules may not be part of the operating system. Only software which is concerned with creating an abstract interface to the computer hardware.
By that definition (which I accept) it would also include the basic libraries that provide access to system calls, and Xlib to provide access to the accelerated and high resolution graphics.
An operating system is a piece of software that presents an abstract interface to running applications that is identical regardless of the details of the hardware it is running on.
...is the interface to the database of working applications on their web page. There is no rhyme or reason to the order of the entries.
in case you wanted another reason. Don't use it myself, this is just what colleagues tell me.
Just get two and do nightly backups to a friend's house. I don't see what the big deal is, though,
you can get 37 gig ide drives today for a lot less.
thats why!
Considering what programming is - describing how to do things - its not plausable that an automatic way of doing it will ever be developed, at least not for anything interesting. If you can do it automatically, its not really programming.
To put it another way, programming is inherantly less automatable than the tasks that are being programmed. As long as there are activities that can't be done automatically, there will be a superset of programs to do those things that can't be written automatically.
There are amusing logs of people talking to Eliza like programs that are clearly convinced that they are talking to a person. Particularly when the program is set up to flirt rather than psychoanalyze. It sort of requires a more careful statement of what the Turing test is. It doesn't just mean `can fool some bozo out there.'
If what you want to hear is a real audio stream, you need a real audio player.
Go figure.
There is still no way of knowing what kernel and modules are present just because what you are running is called Linux. So there can never be such a thing as Linux compatible hardware. Furthermore, if you think user space code doesn't affect hardware compatibility you should check out the SANE project, which is scanner support in 100% user space code.
I can't see any well defined procedure by which you could verify ``Linux compatibility.'' The fact that the modem still doesn't work does suck, though.
I think that "Face It" is short hand for "I can't justify my position but everyone agrees with me anyway."
and it isn't me. Some channels are in, some are out. Is that censorship? How is it different from the V-chip, besides that fact that I can turn the V-chip off?
You teach your kids not to drink poison, but you also put a lock on the cabinet under the sink when they're ten months old.
If your kids are young enough (between 3 and 6) you can perform your own experiment. Let them watch "The Shining", you'll experience emotional disturbances until dawn.
Those will mess a kids mind up good. Better she should watch Sailor Moon...
Bullshit. Its about providing more choices. Its about providing tools for parenting. Who gives a fuck if kids can't watch certain channels? They can just go read a book.
This is a truly ridiculous argument, like TV and books are an either/or proposition. Its the same as saying that everyone who uses a computer is an anti-social geek. And the idea that you should sit next to your kid every minute the TV is on is equally preposterous.
You say that restricting the channels my television will display violates my childrens rights. Isn't not owning a television restricting their rights even further?
The owners of my cable system get to decide exactly what does and doesn't get broadcast. Why are their rights more important than mine?
Ok, but who cares about them? :)
eom
So the test would be meaningful wouldn't suck.
Ok, so your system isn't good enough to tell the difference. What if you someday get a better system? I hope you're not throwing the CDs out. This test isn't about whether MP3s are ``mostly ok'', its about whether you should throw your CDs out after you encode them. And you shouldn't.