Do you mean write the entire OS in assembly? There are a couple of projects that use Linux Assembly's mini distribution of tools coded in 100% asm for space reasons but I'm not sure if writing the entire kernel in asm would be practical. Oh wait...
My forehead was connected, by a series of electrodes, to a machine that looked something like an old-fashioned beauty-salon hair dryer and was sunnily described to me as a ''Danish-made transcranial magnetic stimulator.
All that is needed to complete this picture is for the Doc to sigh out:
My God! Do you know what this tells me? It tells me... that this damn thing doesn't work at all!
Actually it was an American who said it best: "You should be in business to improve the lives of those around you" - John Paul Getty. I like that. I've studied him and he really did think like that - business for him was for improving the lives of family, friends, employees and business partners. He was damn good at it too.
And they really can't; at a discontinuity the Fourier series converges to half the sum of the value of the function approached from the left and right, this leads to the oscillations known as Gibbs phenomena. The overshoot near the discontinuities when expanding a pulse, for example, will not diminish no matter how many terms are used.
Very true Mr AC. But Gibbs also showed that the width of the overshoot converges to zero as the number of sinusoids used tends to infinity so that the difference between the summation and the original signal will have zero energy. So Lagrange was right in a sense - you technically can't do what Fourier proposed but the difference between summed sinusoids and the original signal has an energy of zero - which is close enough.
And I believe that when Joseph Fourier presented his work to the academy of sciences showing that any function could be represented as an infinite sum of sine and cosine functions, the result was a big yawn from everyone.
Funnily enough it actually generated quite a bit of controversy. Joesph Louis Lagrange happened to be on the review council and refused to believe that adding sinusoids could produce signals with corners. It was only after Lagrange died some 15 years later that Fourier could get his paper published.
Let us be swappers we'll copy our fortunes together I've got some Matrix rips here on my drive So we grabbed the latest anime And gigs of cutie pie and dialled up to look for Ameeeeericaaa...
This is an oft-repeated falsehood. You can't have it both ways.
Nice troll AC, to which the answer is: bullshit, the whole frigging point of the GPL is that it works exactly like that.
You can't both give your work to anybody and everybody under terms that allow them (in fact REQUIRE them) to redistribute your work and yet still claim to hold an exclusive copyright on it.
The GPL does not REQUIRE you to redistribute your work at all. You are perfectly welcome to incorporate GPLed code into any product you want. If and only if you want to redistribute the code or a derivative of it does the license kick in. And yes you can have it both ways. If it's my code, I can license it how I want. I can either charge millions of dollars to any development team who wants a copy (see these guys for a good example) or I can release the code under a share and share alike license (again something that the same guys have done) or I can choose something in between. None of these choices in any way changes the fact that I was the creator of the work and hence by the Berne Convention have the copyright.
after all, he got his start as a punk kid making films at a very young age
If you have the special edition of Saving Private Ryan on DVD, there's a fascinating documentary on Spielberg's early film-making career: making war films with his childhood friends using such techniques as splicing in freely-available WWII gun camera footage into tilted camera scenes of his friends sitting in cockpits. It's low-budget, improvised genius stuff. I don't think he could have had any other reaction than nostalgia when he saw what these guys had done with Raiders.
Meeting people online is a lot cheaper, safer, and easier than most real life methods.
It also has fewer barriers. I once invited the local LUG around for a bash at my place. One guy replied in the affirmative with "yeah I'll walk." Turns out he lived two houses away from me - something we hadn't discovered after a couple of years chatting on the mailing list:)
In more ways than one. After I read Mr Perens' comment I had visions of him standing over Darl (who is lying on the bathroom floor tied up with an elastic around his balls) saying: "Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We code your apps, we drive your stock price. We support your stupid servers, we guard you while you sleep. Do not fuck with us."
Well, maybe not "we code your apps" until we can actually prove how much Linux code SCO has pinched...
However, it seems to me that given the mentality you just described, Office for Mac OS should never have been released.
Because Office for MacOS has been around a long time - Word for the Mac was already at version 3.0 in 1988 - before Linus even went to university. Microsoft was in the process of getting market share in those days - it had very strong competitors in the form of Wordperfect, Mac Write II and WriteNow. The Mac was (and I suppose is) just another applications platform to which Microsoft applications could be sold to paying customers. Today it has an installed base and I guess a big enough revenue stream to continue being viable.
Now, I realize that Mac OS isn't the same kind of threat as Linux, but once upon a time, it was probably the biggest obstacle to MS in terms of totally owning the consumer computer market.
Remember the context here is 1988. The rift between Microsoft and IBM hasn't really arisen yet. Windows is not really being pushed much by Microsoft. Paul Carroll in Big Blues (pp. 181-182) says that all the real energy at Microsoft was put into getting a version of OS/2 out by the end of that year. Operating systems were the company's main revenue - which is easy to forget today when we look at how much of a cash cow Office is for Microsoft. When it came to applications in the late 80s, Microsoft was just another player in the IT market and a small one at that. Developing Office for the Mac was just another task in the applications team which itself was fairly small compared with the 200 or so bodies engaged in the OS/2 deathmarch.
They "could" actually release "microsoft office" for linux. That would be an idea!
No it won't and for a simple reason: more than anything else, Bill Gates likes to win. The money is incidental. Yes I am being entirely serious. Go and read Accidental Empires by Robert X Cringlely or Big Blues by Paul Carroll or any other detailed treatise of the early (and subsequent) days of the PC. The overriding impression of Gates is that he wants to win. It's a philosophy that permates the organisation from the top down. Why do you think Microsoft Account directors are being given millions in discounts and orders to "under NO circumstances lose to Linux"? Surely that money would be better spent in the medium term in other ways? But seen in the context of "winning the business at all costs" it makes perfect sense. Here's the telling quote and you can be really really sure that Gates has read it and knows it: "If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won" - Linus Torvalds. Source here This is a lovely quote from Linus and I'm sure he knew exactly what he was saying by putting it in terms of the "win-lose" mentality of Microsoft. Office for Linux would be a huge loss of face. Can you imagine the/. headline (and the next one a day later:): Linus prophecy fulfilled as Gates loses face over Linux Office. The IT press would be all over it.
Cool - well spotted (I didn't notice this). The score uses the same elements it has before but in a different way which is I suppose one of the tools available to a composer to show same event from a different perspective. Actually I need to see TTT again - I must have missed the first half an hour because I was so stunned by the opening five minutes.
Which just goes to show there's no accounting for taste:) I thought the soundtracks were masterpieces all round: grand sweeping themes for the grand sweeping bits, a light and bouncy tune for the hobbits, some stunning pieces that somehow actually managed somehow to sound elvish, and excellent dark and brooding bits for Moria. The Academy agreed. The memorability of both Star Wars and Raiders is a factor of time and how much both have penetrated Western culture. The themes from both have been played, parodied, and imitated a thousand times over the last two decades. Also, both are much less epics than rollicking adventure films which lend themselves more to a contemporary theme. Don't get me wrong - I love (and own) both the Raiders and Star Wars soundtracks - but I went straight out and bought both Ring soundtracks as soon as they were available.
Re:a good explanation from....
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
True although this seems pretty clear:
Microsoft hardly needs an SCO source license. Its license payment to SCO is simply a good-looking way to pass along a bribe, coupled with an announcement designed to further intimidate Linux users.
Slashdot Mirror
Blame it on my disability which often manifests itself in word association jokes at the expense of others...
It was Patrick I think.
Soilder
Soilder? As in Soil Der Pants? I know I would if a nuke was incoming.
Do you mean write the entire OS in assembly? There are a couple of projects that use Linux Assembly's mini distribution of tools coded in 100% asm for space reasons but I'm not sure if writing the entire kernel in asm would be practical.
Oh wait...
or even better:
SAFE SCO-IBM TROLL GIT
I should send some of these to The Reg...
BILL GATES, MICROSOFT
rearranges to:
IF A TROLL, IBM GETS SCO
All that is needed to complete this picture is for the Doc to sigh out:
My God! Do you know what this tells me? It tells me
Actually it was an American who said it best:
"You should be in business to improve the lives of those around you" - John Paul Getty.
I like that. I've studied him and he really did think like that - business for him was for improving the lives of family, friends, employees and business partners. He was damn good at it too.
And they really can't; at a discontinuity the Fourier series converges to half the sum of the value of the function approached from the left and right, this leads to the oscillations known as Gibbs phenomena. The overshoot near the discontinuities when expanding a pulse, for example, will not diminish no matter how many terms are used.
Very true Mr AC. But Gibbs also showed that the width of the overshoot converges to zero as the number of sinusoids used tends to infinity so that the difference between the summation and the original signal will have zero energy. So Lagrange was right in a sense - you technically can't do what Fourier proposed but the difference between summed sinusoids and the original signal has an energy of zero - which is close enough.
And I believe that when Joseph Fourier presented his work to the academy of sciences showing that any function could be represented as an infinite sum of sine and cosine functions, the result was a big yawn from everyone.
Funnily enough it actually generated quite a bit of controversy. Joesph Louis Lagrange happened to be on the review council and refused to believe that adding sinusoids could produce signals with corners. It was only after Lagrange died some 15 years later that Fourier could get his paper published.
Might have been - I'm not sure.
The Telstra statement did not mention broadband, DSL, or cable, but quoted Telstra CEO Ziggy Switkowski
Time to move Ziggy for great justice?
Hehe - thanks. Much better than my verse was going to be :)
Let us be swappers we'll copy our fortunes together
I've got some Matrix rips here on my drive
So we grabbed the latest anime
And gigs of cutie pie
and dialled up to look for Ameeeeericaaa...
This is an oft-repeated falsehood. You can't have it both ways.
Nice troll AC, to which the answer is: bullshit, the whole frigging point of the GPL is that it works exactly like that.
You can't both give your work to anybody and everybody under terms that allow them (in fact REQUIRE them) to redistribute your work and yet still claim to hold an exclusive copyright on it.
The GPL does not REQUIRE you to redistribute your work at all. You are perfectly welcome to incorporate GPLed code into any product you want. If and only if you want to redistribute the code or a derivative of it does the license kick in. And yes you can have it both ways. If it's my code, I can license it how I want. I can either charge millions of dollars to any development team who wants a copy (see these guys for a good example) or I can release the code under a share and share alike license (again something that the same guys have done) or I can choose something in between. None of these choices in any way changes the fact that I was the creator of the work and hence by the Berne Convention have the copyright.
after all, he got his start as a punk kid making films at a very young age
If you have the special edition of Saving Private Ryan on DVD, there's a fascinating documentary on Spielberg's early film-making career: making war films with his childhood friends using such techniques as splicing in freely-available WWII gun camera footage into tilted camera scenes of his friends sitting in cockpits. It's low-budget, improvised genius stuff. I don't think he could have had any other reaction than nostalgia when he saw what these guys had done with Raiders.
Meeting people online is a lot cheaper, safer, and easier than most real life methods.
:)
It also has fewer barriers. I once invited the local LUG around for a bash at my place. One guy replied in the affirmative with "yeah I'll walk." Turns out he lived two houses away from me - something we hadn't discovered after a couple of years chatting on the mailing list
Brian Epstein could have played Boromir...
In more ways than one. After I read Mr Perens' comment I had visions of him standing over Darl (who is lying on the bathroom floor tied up with an elastic around his balls) saying:
"Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We code your apps, we drive your stock price. We support your stupid servers, we guard you while you sleep. Do not fuck with us."
Well, maybe not "we code your apps" until we can actually prove how much Linux code SCO has pinched...
And if so: would be interested in some property in the Florida Everglades?
Must...resist...burned down fell over sank into the swamp.. comment...
However, it seems to me that given the mentality you just described, Office for Mac OS should never have been released.
Because Office for MacOS has been around a long time - Word for the Mac was already at version 3.0 in 1988 - before Linus even went to university. Microsoft was in the process of getting market share in those days - it had very strong competitors in the form of Wordperfect, Mac Write II and WriteNow. The Mac was (and I suppose is) just another applications platform to which Microsoft applications could be sold to paying customers. Today it has an installed base and I guess a big enough revenue stream to continue being viable.
Now, I realize that Mac OS isn't the same kind of threat as Linux, but once upon a time, it was probably the biggest obstacle to MS in terms of totally owning the consumer computer market.
Remember the context here is 1988. The rift between Microsoft and IBM hasn't really arisen yet. Windows is not really being pushed much by Microsoft. Paul Carroll in Big Blues (pp. 181-182) says that all the real energy at Microsoft was put into getting a version of OS/2 out by the end of that year. Operating systems were the company's main revenue - which is easy to forget today when we look at how much of a cash cow Office is for Microsoft. When it came to applications in the late 80s, Microsoft was just another player in the IT market and a small one at that. Developing Office for the Mac was just another task in the applications team which itself was fairly small compared with the 200 or so bodies engaged in the OS/2 deathmarch.
They "could" actually release "microsoft office" for linux. That would be an idea!
/. headline (and the next one a day later :): Linus prophecy fulfilled as Gates loses face over Linux Office.
No it won't and for a simple reason: more than anything else, Bill Gates likes to win. The money is incidental. Yes I am being entirely serious. Go and read Accidental Empires by Robert X Cringlely or Big Blues by Paul Carroll or any other detailed treatise of the early (and subsequent) days of the PC. The overriding impression of Gates is that he wants to win. It's a philosophy that permates the organisation from the top down. Why do you think Microsoft Account directors are being given millions in discounts and orders to "under NO circumstances lose to Linux"? Surely that money would be better spent in the medium term in other ways? But seen in the context of "winning the business at all costs" it makes perfect sense.
Here's the telling quote and you can be really really sure that Gates has read it and knows it:
"If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won" - Linus Torvalds. Source here
This is a lovely quote from Linus and I'm sure he knew exactly what he was saying by putting it in terms of the "win-lose" mentality of Microsoft.
Office for Linux would be a huge loss of face. Can you imagine the
The IT press would be all over it.
Cool - well spotted (I didn't notice this). The score uses the same elements it has before but in a different way which is I suppose one of the tools available to a composer to show same event from a different perspective.
Actually I need to see TTT again - I must have missed the first half an hour because I was so stunned by the opening five minutes.
Which just goes to show there's no accounting for taste :) I thought the soundtracks were masterpieces all round: grand sweeping themes for the grand sweeping bits, a light and bouncy tune for the hobbits, some stunning pieces that somehow actually managed somehow to sound elvish, and excellent dark and brooding bits for Moria. The Academy agreed.
The memorability of both Star Wars and Raiders is a factor of time and how much both have penetrated Western culture. The themes from both have been played, parodied, and imitated a thousand times over the last two decades. Also, both are much less epics than rollicking adventure films which lend themselves more to a contemporary theme. Don't get me wrong - I love (and own) both the Raiders and Star Wars soundtracks - but I went straight out and bought both Ring soundtracks as soon as they were available.
True although this seems pretty clear:
Microsoft hardly needs an SCO source license. Its license payment to SCO is simply a good-looking way to pass along a bribe, coupled with an announcement designed to further intimidate Linux users.