it's the keyboard on the left I'm talking about, not the rather ugly (in comparison) one on the right. it seems to be fairly highly recommended for people with wrist injuries of the type we all complain of. if you look closely at the top down view of it you'll see they have the keys for the little fingers raised so you don't have to move your hands to get at them. infact they've designed them so that all the keys are within reach with minimal hand/wrist movement.
oh and they still look cool. damn do they look cool!:)
they're not cheap, but they're certainly the best I've found so far. and they look absolutely superly cool:) (been used in a few movies, for their sci-fi-ness).
although to be honest I haven't got one yet, it should be arriving in about 12 hours though:) I'll probably do a wee review of it once I've got it so maybe check base.yi.org tomorrow..
Just about everyone here has been making the same mistake - they've been equating ability in one area (generally abstract thinking - I mean hey, we're all programmers/thinkers/etc here at/.) with `intelligence'.
Yea.. I was thinking along similar lines, in thinking in one area increases your ability to think in that one area, but not necessarily others. What brought this to mind is acting, which is vastly different from programming. Whilst an actor will become more and more skilled in understanding human emotions and motives and recreating them, they will in no way be furthering their ability to comprehend any code of any programming language. Infact they're probably lessening their chances of comprehending it, by developing their mind in the completely opposite direction. And of course the inverse is probably true, in that intense programming will lessen your mental ability to act well.
This is all very much off on a tangent of course, but hey.. do I look like I care whether I get moderated off-topic? huh? of course I do:)
HURD is a kernel, Linux is a kernel, and FreeBSD has a kernel. The kernel is not the operating system. Debian is an operating system which is becoming kernel independant. To make a complete new operating system around HURD would be to reinvent the wheel. And seeing as HURD and Debian are both GNU or FSF projects (is Debian under FSF, it is isn't it? I get lost in all these terms) then it makes perfect sense for them to blend.
FreeBSD on the other hand is a bigger issue. FreeBSD already has its own complete operating system. Making a FreeBSD based Debian is in many ways reinventing the wheel. But the motivation behind it is most probably to do with people's favouring the Debian environment over the FreeBSD one, or simply to do with adding another kernel option to Debianwhich surely can't hurt.
I'd be most interested in his opinion on the FreeBSD kernel as it seems quite a leap.
granted that's some cleverness there, but the gnome-terminal implimentation is a step nicer. Move the mouse pointer over a URL and it underlines it so you can see what string it will pass through, then just one click and it pops up a new netscape window with it. nifty
I'd say a hell of a lot of people are working towards Linux for the desktop. On the distribution side, there's Corel, on the application integration there's KDE and GNOME, and on the hardware configuration side there's quite a few kernel hackers doing good things with USB, Plug and Play, etc. Put it all together, and in not too long Linux for the desktop will seem quite logical.
relating all this to Enlightenment though (to avoid being branded off-topic:).. Where does E fit in to this picture I'm wondering? To me, it feels like it's going for a niche of perhaps graphic artists, power users, interior decorators, architects, investment bankers, lunch bar operators... uhh...
"[Open Source] programming is like sex, one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life." M. Sinz, CBM Inc.
Huh? I don't have time to read long winded articles on issues that I personally feel are already decisive, and this opening quote put me off reading further immediately. If you are programming Open Source software, chances are you're programming under GPL or perhaps BSD licenses, which specifically state no warranty. Maybe I should have read further to properly understand why this quote was valid and important enough to open a critique with, but frankly it didn't give me much faith in what might follow. Call me lazy, but I just feel no need to hear critique on something I feel is already a proven hard fact.
el bobo
Re:Does it have network drivers this time? yes
on
QNX OS on a floppy
·
· Score: 1
Yes, there's a network version now (at least, that's what the page says, I haven't tried).
I'm wondering if they're using the new GUI they designed for the new Amigas on this floppy. Wait, DID they design that GUI, or was it Amiga that designed it in collaboration with them?
Anyway, if they are, that'd be one very snappy looking floppy sized OS:)
Seeing as I can't moderate you, I'll reply instead.
He was not talking about autistic children, he was talking about a person of 17 with the mental age of 1, who will remain that way for the rest of their life. Autistic is quite different.
You are relating this sort of thinking to Hitler, yes? Hitler and his ideas are almost incomparable (I say almost). Whilst he wanted everyone of a certain race or races killed (genecide) here we are talking specifically about killing children who are severely handicapped (euthanasia). Whilst genecide is almost (again, I say almost) globally accepted as wrong, euthanasia is still a hotly debatable issue.
Now for my personal opinions on this (or are they my personal -feelings- on this? Perhaps there should be clearer destinction).
1)I think that this sort of action should be legal, but HIGHLY HIGHLY controlled. Allowed only in the most severest of severe cases.
2)I believe also that there should be distinction between physically handicapped, and mentally handicapped. Severely mentally handicapped children we have little to no hope for, in helping them to lead a normal life. We cannot replace their brain, they will always be handicapped and ALWAYS require supervision, support, assistance, etc. Whilst severely physically handicapped people can eventually benefit from advanced technologies that allow them to move around, communicate, etc. And physically handicapped people at least have the one organ functioning which we have the least ability to replace or correct - the brain.
Still, it's a complex issue, with no easy cut and dry answers.
ok so it's not quite with the topic, but it kinda links with Mozilla.
Anyone heard of NetCaptor? Win32 only, but it does a lot of the things people have been muttering about here. And it'll be able to use Mozilla's layout engine when it's ready..
Well, I like like it, anyway (for when I'm stuck in win32 land, that is)
I'd only just got home from talking with my stock broker to find this mess. Hell of a "you've just bought shares in us" present!
If you surf from www.corel.com through their contact part, there's an email address for shareholder feedback. That's where my emails have been going, seeing as they're talking about "protecting our shareholders interests". Hell, I dont feel like mine are being defended! If it's the share price, and shareholders who they're worried about, then we should tell them as shareholders that it's not on!
'the GPL covers the terms under which the software must be distributed'
No, the GPL quite clearly states:
'4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.'
Now that quite clearly means that however you define distribution is irrelevant, because they are copying, modifying, and sublicensing. The GPL goes on to say:
'Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.'
So, if we were to do this by the book, then we could say they have already voided their rights. But I think that's probably going just a little over the top as yet! The GPL goes on again to say:
'However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.'
Which to me states that we can work with the Corel Linux Beta as it if were a normal GPLed distribution anyway.
Please if you know more about licensing law than me, do correct me.
Of course, this is all very subversive talk, and probably quite unnecessary as I'm sure Corel will figure it out soon enough and sort things. But still, it does put things in an interesting light. The GPL actually appears quite powerful at the end of the day, when it comes to defending the end user. Not so good for people like Corel who want to do things their way though.
Sure. That was my knee-jerk reaction too. Their license is invalid, therefore treat it as such and distribute at will. Hell, slap it on an ftp server somewhere and invite all your friends!
But wait! wont this just alienate Corel, giving them good reason to detest the Open Source community? Do we really want to be that antagonistic?
As I see it, ultimately they've stuffed up, and are actually legally in the wrong. Someone in Corel just has to admit it, redo the beta license, and move on.
If they don't, if they still need some encouraging in order to sort this out, then infact anyone who owns GPLed code that's in the Corel distribution is fully allowed to tell Corel they no longer have the right to use it. Read that bit of the GPL? Something about breaking the GPL removes their right to the use of the software.
But again, doing that would alienate Corel. This should be handled carefully and diplomatically, not in usual zeolot style flaming manner. My recommendation is that if you wrote GPLed code that's in Corel's distribution, then politely tell them that they're breaking with the license agreement, and could they please modify their licensing or you will be forced to revoke their rights to use your code. Sort of a cease and desist thingie. No need to actually revoke their rights, just the mild warning should do the trick, surely.
Slashdot Mirror
thought I'd add a little to my post there :)
:)
it's the keyboard on the left I'm talking about, not the rather ugly (in comparison) one on the right. it seems to be fairly highly recommended for people with wrist injuries of the type we all complain of. if you look closely at the top down view of it you'll see they have the keys for the little fingers raised so you don't have to move your hands to get at them. infact they've designed them so that all the keys are within reach with minimal hand/wrist movement.
oh and they still look cool. damn do they look cool!
el bobo
www.kinesis-ergo.com
:) (been used in a few movies, for their sci-fi-ness).
:) I'll probably do a wee review of it once I've got it so maybe check base.yi.org tomorrow..
they're not cheap, but they're certainly the best I've found so far. and they look absolutely superly cool
although to be honest I haven't got one yet, it should be arriving in about 12 hours though
el bobo
Just about everyone here has been making the same mistake - they've been equating ability in one area /.) with `intelligence'.
:)
(generally abstract thinking - I mean hey, we're all programmers/thinkers/etc here at
Yea.. I was thinking along similar lines, in thinking in one area increases your ability to think in that one area, but not necessarily others. What brought this to mind is acting, which is vastly different from programming. Whilst an actor will become more and more skilled in understanding human emotions and motives and recreating them, they will in no way be furthering their ability to comprehend any code of any programming language. Infact they're probably lessening their chances of comprehending it, by developing their mind in the completely opposite direction. And of course the inverse is probably true, in that intense programming will lessen your mental ability to act well.
This is all very much off on a tangent of course, but hey.. do I look like I care whether I get moderated off-topic? huh? of course I do
el bobo
that's why I said 'has a kernel' not 'is a kernel'.
HURD is a kernel, Linux is a kernel, and FreeBSD has a kernel. The kernel is not the operating system. Debian is an operating system which is becoming kernel independant. To make a complete new operating system around HURD would be to reinvent the wheel. And seeing as HURD and Debian are both GNU or FSF projects (is Debian under FSF, it is isn't it? I get lost in all these terms) then it makes perfect sense for them to blend.
FreeBSD on the other hand is a bigger issue. FreeBSD already has its own complete operating system. Making a FreeBSD based Debian is in many ways reinventing the wheel. But the motivation behind it is most probably to do with people's favouring the Debian environment over the FreeBSD one, or simply to do with adding another kernel option to Debianwhich surely can't hurt.
I'd be most interested in his opinion on the FreeBSD kernel as it seems quite a leap.
granted that's some cleverness there, but the gnome-terminal implimentation is a step nicer. Move the mouse pointer over a URL and it underlines it so you can see what string it will pass through, then just one click and it pops up a new netscape window with it. nifty
el bobo
I'd say a hell of a lot of people are working towards Linux for the desktop. On the distribution side, there's Corel, on the application integration there's KDE and GNOME, and on the hardware configuration side there's quite a few kernel hackers doing good things with USB, Plug and Play, etc. Put it all together, and in not too long Linux for the desktop will seem quite logical.
:) .. Where does E fit in to this picture I'm wondering? To me, it feels like it's going for a niche of perhaps graphic artists, power users, interior decorators, architects, investment bankers, lunch bar operators... uhh...
relating all this to Enlightenment though (to avoid being branded off-topic
el bobo
The introduction of this critique opens with:
"[Open Source] programming is like sex, one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."
M. Sinz, CBM Inc.
Huh? I don't have time to read long winded articles on issues that I personally feel are already decisive, and this opening quote put me off reading further immediately. If you are programming Open Source software, chances are you're programming under GPL or perhaps BSD licenses, which specifically state no warranty. Maybe I should have read further to properly understand why this quote was valid and important enough to open a critique with, but frankly it didn't give me much faith in what might follow. Call me lazy, but I just feel no need to hear critique on something I feel is already a proven hard fact.
el bobo
Yes, there's a network version now (at least, that's what the page says, I haven't tried).
:)
I'm wondering if they're using the new GUI they designed for the new Amigas on this floppy. Wait, DID they design that GUI, or was it Amiga that designed it in collaboration with them?
Anyway, if they are, that'd be one very snappy looking floppy sized OS
el bobo
Seeing as I can't moderate you, I'll reply instead.
He was not talking about autistic children, he was talking about a person of 17 with the mental age of 1, who will remain that way for the rest of their life. Autistic is quite different.
You are relating this sort of thinking to Hitler, yes? Hitler and his ideas are almost incomparable (I say almost). Whilst he wanted everyone of a certain race or races killed (genecide) here we are talking specifically about killing children who are severely handicapped (euthanasia). Whilst genecide is almost (again, I say almost) globally accepted as wrong, euthanasia is still a hotly debatable issue.
Now for my personal opinions on this (or are they my personal -feelings- on this? Perhaps there should be clearer destinction).
1)I think that this sort of action should be legal, but HIGHLY HIGHLY controlled. Allowed only in the most severest of severe cases.
2)I believe also that there should be distinction between physically handicapped, and mentally handicapped. Severely mentally handicapped children we have little to no hope for, in helping them to lead a normal life. We cannot replace their brain, they will always be handicapped and ALWAYS require supervision, support, assistance, etc. Whilst severely physically handicapped people can eventually benefit from advanced technologies that allow them to move around, communicate, etc. And physically handicapped people at least have the one organ functioning which we have the least ability to replace or correct - the brain.
Still, it's a complex issue, with no easy cut and dry answers.
el bobo
For christ's sake son, shut up.
New release a Microsoft tactic? Ever noticed how EVERYONE releases new versions? And you can download the ISOs or individual RPMs for G'DAMN FREE.
'Release early, release often'. Funny, that mantra sounds somewhat appropriate.
Son, you're getting top quality software handed to you on a plate, for free, and all you can do is whine? Go outside, get a life.
el bobo
ok so it's not quite with the topic, but it kinda links with Mozilla.
Anyone heard of NetCaptor? Win32 only, but it does a lot of the things people have been muttering about here. And it'll be able to use Mozilla's layout engine when it's ready..
Well, I like like it, anyway (for when I'm stuck in win32 land, that is)
www.netcaptor.com is where it's at.
Matt
dito.
I'd only just got home from talking with my stock broker to find this mess. Hell of a "you've just bought shares in us" present!
If you surf from www.corel.com through their contact part, there's an email address for shareholder feedback. That's where my emails have been going, seeing as they're talking about "protecting our shareholders interests". Hell, I dont feel like mine are being defended! If it's the share price, and shareholders who they're worried about, then we should tell them as shareholders that it's not on!
el bobo
'the GPL covers the terms under which the software must be distributed'
No, the GPL quite clearly states:
'4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.'
Now that quite clearly means that however you define distribution is irrelevant, because they are copying, modifying, and sublicensing. The GPL goes on to say:
'Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.'
So, if we were to do this by the book, then we could say they have already voided their rights. But I think that's probably going just a little over the top as yet! The GPL goes on again to say:
'However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.'
Which to me states that we can work with the Corel Linux Beta as it if were a normal GPLed distribution anyway.
Please if you know more about licensing law than me, do correct me.
Of course, this is all very subversive talk, and probably quite unnecessary as I'm sure Corel will figure it out soon enough and sort things. But still, it does put things in an interesting light. The GPL actually appears quite powerful at the end of the day, when it comes to defending the end user. Not so good for people like Corel who want to do things their way though.
elbobo
Sure. That was my knee-jerk reaction too. Their license is invalid, therefore treat it as such and distribute at will. Hell, slap it on an ftp server somewhere and invite all your friends!
But wait! wont this just alienate Corel, giving them good reason to detest the Open Source community? Do we really want to be that antagonistic?
As I see it, ultimately they've stuffed up, and are actually legally in the wrong. Someone in Corel just has to admit it, redo the beta license, and move on.
If they don't, if they still need some encouraging in order to sort this out, then infact anyone who owns GPLed code that's in the Corel distribution is fully allowed to tell Corel they no longer have the right to use it. Read that bit of the GPL? Something about breaking the GPL removes their right to the use of the software.
But again, doing that would alienate Corel. This should be handled carefully and diplomatically, not in usual zeolot style flaming manner. My recommendation is that if you wrote GPLed code that's in Corel's distribution, then politely tell them that they're breaking with the license agreement, and could they please modify their licensing or you will be forced to revoke their rights to use your code. Sort of a cease and desist thingie. No need to actually revoke their rights, just the mild warning should do the trick, surely.
el bobo