I find that the scorn heaped on newbies for asking questions is more in how they ask the questions. ESR has a wonderful page called "How to Ask Questions the Smart Way" that clears almost all of this up.
In brief: Helping you is not a waste of time, but talking and waiting both are, so say as much as possible in as few words and as short a time frame (whether measured in emails or seconds) as possible. If I have to ask you twice for more information, you're wasting my time. There are always other newbies I can help if you're not worth it. You won't be the only one with your problem, so keep it public so others can learn about it or so it will be stored in the archives. (occasionally someone will help you privately if you're still wet behind the ears with respect to whatever software you need help with, or they'll help you privately because they don't know about this rule but somehow happen to know the answer) If you're being ignored, it more likely because no one knows the answer than because we don't want to help you. (this is mostly IRC specific)
If you follow these rules, I find the people in virtually every #linux channel on every network (I use Dalnet) very helpful. There's usually one person who has done whatever you need help with on during every 1 hour timeframe. I've only come across one problem I couldn't get help with.
This is bad because of things like dynamically generated pages will be downloaded twice, I'm pretty sure it's not concurrent, and it won't respect the webauthors' wishes regarding archival.
A software generalist is a programmer who writes a lot of different kinds of software (i.e. is the opposite of a specialist).
Rick calls himself "a software generalist" in the Linux community, who answers technical questions on-line, concerning all aspects of Linux. He does this on the mailing lists of various Linux user groups (without respect to geographical boundaries - he is very active on the Linux Users of Victoria list), on Usenet newsgroups, and as a member of the answer gang of the monthly e-magazine Linux Gazette.
A journalist, on the other hand, is someone who takes straightforward, uninnovative phrases and puts them in quotes, followed by an appositive with misleading context clues.
It is being hijacked in the sense of "hijacking a thread", rather than "hijacking a plane". Hijacking is geekslang for going off topic. Drawing an analogy to Gnome, they posit that it's original mission has been abandoned.
I personally have no opinion on the matter; I'm just trying to clarify things.
The reason is how easy it is to add software that your distro hasn't thought of. In most cases with Sorcerer and forks thereof, it's just a matter of making a small file that tells where the source tarball is located, and the defaults do the rest. You don't even have to figure out what files it installs because a daemon watches the installation and records the files it installs.
Updating software is a matter of changing the version number in a small file(the source location usually includes $VERSION). Changing from stable to unstable development versions is quite easy--modify the version number. Keeping the source available uncompressed or keeping the object files in case you update frequently are command line options.
If you know how to code, problems are easier to fix in a source distro than a binary(if not, though, they are more difficult).
Then there are optional dependencies. You don't need to download different RPMs if you can do without PHP's ability to create image on the fly.
In many cases, a source is a smaller download than a binary(exceptions being the linux kernel and Mozilla).
If you want a dark, gritty character, and all the Batman dross that is created doesn't cut it for you, then you create a new character that is always in dark, gritty situations. You've furthered culture. This is the essence of the public-domain arguments. Batman was created in the 1940's. We're still making movies about him. Why haven't we created a new character that is darker, grittier, and rids himself of the knight in shining tights mythos.
The subcultures that are creating new culture aren't passing on their creations to the mainstream because of the economic(widespread monopolies and/or oligopolies) and legal conditions(copyright, trademark). The new subcultures in America that have their own heroes get them from the outside(anime, etc.). If you created a new heroic character, you'd get laughed off. If it's not first in a comic book, the comic book community will scoff at you, and even if you did, you'd get scoffed by those who'd say, "Trying to create a new Batman? Who do you think you are?". If you made a TV show, it'd have to be Sci-fi, or no one would watch it. If you tried to create a 60's-Batman-like show with a new character, you'd get laughed off.
Copyright, in essence, says that the past is more important than the present. You can't change Mickey because we don't want Mickey to be different from the way we remember.
No, what people need to understand is that it need not be how it is now. That is always the case. It doesn't matter if it was or was not this way in the past. At the time of the American Revolution, there had only been one instance of democracy in the world. At the time of the formation of the Athenian democracy, there had not ever been a democracy anywhere in the world. Even if there had always been a DMCA, we needn't tolerate this oppression just as the Athenians didn't need to tolerate monarchy.
The knowledge that it wasn't always this way is just to demonstrate the point.
There are dozens of excellent programmers who use Linux, but don't hack the kernel. Lowering the barrier in general will allow them to work on the kernel if they feel like it, without lowering the quality of work on the kernel.
Not to mention that, even if 1000 crappy programmers submitted crappy patches to the respective maintainers, they simply wouldn't get the patches included. We don't need to make it difficult for them just so we don't have to write 2 or 3 more replies("Rejected. Code quality sucks." is all that's required) every day.
Re:3500 year old technology
on
Awari Solved
·
· Score: 1
It's probably more like natural selection. We don't still play the games that are essentially lopsided, even though they existed.
...real broadband, not the wussy broadband people are marketing at the moment.
Yeah, I don't want some wussy 300Mbps broadband. Where's my 10GB/s? This flexible fiber, according to the article, can cut the cost to lay last mile fiber. It's about time. Now, if we can only get an ISP to offer the service at that speed...
Dude, you've been mind-fucked. The 10-20% people who have problems with drugs have been made newsworthy by not having any better problems, as well as the fact that it's(or was, anyway; dunno about now) on the rise. Only about 40% of people have actually used drugs.
Most likely, the inaccuracy in your perceptions arises from the crowd with whom you run. Or, more accurately, the portion of that crowd that talks about themselves with confidence. So, if you have three other people who talk about their lives as if everyone was like them(these people tend to "have a life"), and if you have none who *don't* use drugs, then you think everyone uses drugs(except for you, which in some cases means you think you should start) If, on the other hand three do and one does not, you think 75% of people use drugs.
Couple this with the fact that, in my experience, only one in ten people talk about themselves in the fearless manner requisite to discuss heavy topics like drugs, and what you have is a seriously skewed view of reality.
I can answer No to every one of those questions. I can answer without a doubt that every one of my friends could answer No to all but #2. The proportion is even larger for females.(You're probably saying "Oh", rather than disagreeing with that statement. Females tend not to be taken into account in our views of "people". For the record, females feel the same way about men)
As opposed to burning millions of dollars to roll out water pipes and electrical cables?
Some people believe that these are better run in the hands of a government(or with straitjacket regulations on a private company) because these tend to be natural monopolies because of the massive up front costs to build a network, and the almost nonexistent utility a second network provides to the consumer. So it's better, then, for the utility to be at least somewhat under control by the government than an abusive monopoly.
That's the category into which telecom falls.(as you've already mentioned, wireless doesn't)
All the complaints against simply copying proprietary software ideas are because we don't make things like this.
This, to me, seems extremely innovative. If useful structural and/or syntactic information could be conveyed as music(I don't know how well it works), this could become useful. Even if it never becomes useful, doesn't this make an extremely interesting programming project? Doesn't the idea of coming up with some kind of code-structure parser seem like an extremely interesting project? If open source coders code because we like to code, why hasn't somebody made something like this yet?
To be fair, there's a few comparable projects that are equally innovative; the one that comes to mind is the ASCII renderer for Quake.
Now, who wants to make the graphical version?(the one that inputs several code files and outputs a level for Quake III) Apply the idea of music parsing to other fields? Imagine editing a saved game by changing a C to an E#. Imagine a load monitor that plays a symphony when the server is empty and nothing more than a scale on a piano when full? Even if you don't come up with such an original idea yourself, you can still take inspiration from it and apply it to your own endeavors.
He wasn't disputing that the amount in the universe is constant, he was disputing the idea that the amount in any given subset of the universe is constant. We take in energy from the outside. That's the counterpoint to entropy that allows us to function. A nuclear reactor spends fuel that would require more energy to produce than would be released in the reactor. Thus, we acquire more from the environment to sustain the process. All of these processes that acquire materials for energy production must necessarily acquire more energy than it expends, or it would be counterproductive. The energy was always there; we just go and get it.
Now, the previous post argued that all processes must decrease the total amount of energy available; this is not true because not all energy is available.
CGI stands for Computer Generated Image as well as Common Gateway Interface.
Of course, CGI != Perl. CGI is not a programming language or some weird acronym for perl. CGI is an interface; it's a way for information to get from the web server to the program.
Slashdot Mirror
I find that the scorn heaped on newbies for asking questions is more in how they ask the questions. ESR has a wonderful page called "How to Ask Questions the Smart Way" that clears almost all of this up.
In brief:
Helping you is not a waste of time, but talking and waiting both are, so say as much as possible in as few words and as short a time frame (whether measured in emails or seconds) as possible. If I have to ask you twice for more information, you're wasting my time. There are always other newbies I can help if you're not worth it.
You won't be the only one with your problem, so keep it public so others can learn about it or so it will be stored in the archives. (occasionally someone will help you privately if you're still wet behind the ears with respect to whatever software you need help with, or they'll help you privately because they don't know about this rule but somehow happen to know the answer)
If you're being ignored, it more likely because no one knows the answer than because we don't want to help you. (this is mostly IRC specific)
If you follow these rules, I find the people in virtually every #linux channel on every network (I use Dalnet) very helpful. There's usually one person who has done whatever you need help with on during every 1 hour timeframe. I've only come across one problem I couldn't get help with.
An unsophisticated approach to this is:This is bad because of things like dynamically generated pages will be downloaded twice, I'm pretty sure it's not concurrent, and it won't respect the webauthors' wishes regarding archival.
Write yourself a spider to fix these.
I just have 248 nutrient patches pasted all over my body.
I wonder if they'll make my book: How to Circumvent Cleveland Libraries' Time Restriction Mechanism available, too. :)
A journalist, on the other hand, is someone who takes straightforward, uninnovative phrases and puts them in quotes, followed by an appositive with misleading context clues.
By that logic, AOL would be bankrupt by now.
It is being hijacked in the sense of "hijacking a thread", rather than "hijacking a plane". Hijacking is geekslang for going off topic. Drawing an analogy to Gnome, they posit that it's original mission has been abandoned.
I personally have no opinion on the matter; I'm just trying to clarify things.
IIRC, the real quote is that crisis is composed of two characters the meanings of which are danger and opportunity.
The reason is how easy it is to add software that your distro hasn't thought of. In most cases with Sorcerer and forks thereof, it's just a matter of making a small file that tells where the source tarball is located, and the defaults do the rest. You don't even have to figure out what files it installs because a daemon watches the installation and records the files it installs.
Updating software is a matter of changing the version number in a small file(the source location usually includes $VERSION). Changing from stable to unstable development versions is quite easy--modify the version number. Keeping the source available uncompressed or keeping the object files in case you update frequently are command line options.
If you know how to code, problems are easier to fix in a source distro than a binary(if not, though, they are more difficult).
Then there are optional dependencies. You don't need to download different RPMs if you can do without PHP's ability to create image on the fly.
In many cases, a source is a smaller download than a binary(exceptions being the linux kernel and Mozilla).
If you want a dark, gritty character, and all the Batman dross that is created doesn't cut it for you, then you create a new character that is always in dark, gritty situations. You've furthered culture. This is the essence of the public-domain arguments. Batman was created in the 1940's. We're still making movies about him. Why haven't we created a new character that is darker, grittier, and rids himself of the knight in shining tights mythos.
The subcultures that are creating new culture aren't passing on their creations to the mainstream because of the economic(widespread monopolies and/or oligopolies) and legal conditions(copyright, trademark). The new subcultures in America that have their own heroes get them from the outside(anime, etc.). If you created a new heroic character, you'd get laughed off. If it's not first in a comic book, the comic book community will scoff at you, and even if you did, you'd get scoffed by those who'd say, "Trying to create a new Batman? Who do you think you are?". If you made a TV show, it'd have to be Sci-fi, or no one would watch it. If you tried to create a 60's-Batman-like show with a new character, you'd get laughed off.
Copyright, in essence, says that the past is more important than the present. You can't change Mickey because we don't want Mickey to be different from the way we remember.
No, what people need to understand is that it need not be how it is now. That is always the case. It doesn't matter if it was or was not this way in the past. At the time of the American Revolution, there had only been one instance of democracy in the world. At the time of the formation of the Athenian democracy, there had not ever been a democracy anywhere in the world. Even if there had always been a DMCA, we needn't tolerate this oppression just as the Athenians didn't need to tolerate monarchy.
The knowledge that it wasn't always this way is just to demonstrate the point.
Even if it's just a lie or exaggeration, we could use some outright lies on our side for a change.
There are dozens of excellent programmers who use Linux, but don't hack the kernel. Lowering the barrier in general will allow them to work on the kernel if they feel like it, without lowering the quality of work on the kernel.
Not to mention that, even if 1000 crappy programmers submitted crappy patches to the respective maintainers, they simply wouldn't get the patches included. We don't need to make it difficult for them just so we don't have to write 2 or 3 more replies("Rejected. Code quality sucks." is all that's required) every day.
It's probably more like natural selection. We don't still play the games that are essentially lopsided, even though they existed.
Yeah, I don't want some wussy 300Mbps broadband. Where's my 10GB/s? This flexible fiber, according to the article, can cut the cost to lay last mile fiber. It's about time. Now, if we can only get an ISP to offer the service at that speed...
Dude, you've been mind-fucked. The 10-20% people who have problems with drugs have been made newsworthy by not having any better problems, as well as the fact that it's(or was, anyway; dunno about now) on the rise. Only about 40% of people have actually used drugs.
Most likely, the inaccuracy in your perceptions arises from the crowd with whom you run. Or, more accurately, the portion of that crowd that talks about themselves with confidence. So, if you have three other people who talk about their lives as if everyone was like them(these people tend to "have a life"), and if you have none who *don't* use drugs, then you think everyone uses drugs(except for you, which in some cases means you think you should start) If, on the other hand three do and one does not, you think 75% of people use drugs.
Couple this with the fact that, in my experience, only one in ten people talk about themselves in the fearless manner requisite to discuss heavy topics like drugs, and what you have is a seriously skewed view of reality.
I can answer No to every one of those questions. I can answer without a doubt that every one of my friends could answer No to all but #2. The proportion is even larger for females.(You're probably saying "Oh", rather than disagreeing with that statement. Females tend not to be taken into account in our views of "people". For the record, females feel the same way about men)
This sounds like subdermal phosphorescence as discussed in Otherland and other novels as a next generation rebellious self-mutilation.
In other words, like tatoos for the '70's and earrings for the '80's, phosphorescence will be for the future.
We are at war with Eurasia.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
As opposed to burning millions of dollars to roll out water pipes and electrical cables?
Some people believe that these are better run in the hands of a government(or with straitjacket regulations on a private company) because these tend to be natural monopolies because of the massive up front costs to build a network, and the almost nonexistent utility a second network provides to the consumer. So it's better, then, for the utility to be at least somewhat under control by the government than an abusive monopoly.
That's the category into which telecom falls.(as you've already mentioned, wireless doesn't)
Another survey result:
80% of all percentages are made up on the spot.
...trusting that you can kill the cheaters physically if not in the game.
All the complaints against simply copying proprietary software ideas are because we don't make things like this.
This, to me, seems extremely innovative. If useful structural and/or syntactic information could be conveyed as music(I don't know how well it works), this could become useful. Even if it never becomes useful, doesn't this make an extremely interesting programming project? Doesn't the idea of coming up with some kind of code-structure parser seem like an extremely interesting project? If open source coders code because we like to code, why hasn't somebody made something like this yet?
To be fair, there's a few comparable projects that are equally innovative; the one that comes to mind is the ASCII renderer for Quake.
Now, who wants to make the graphical version?(the one that inputs several code files and outputs a level for Quake III) Apply the idea of music parsing to other fields? Imagine editing a saved game by changing a C to an E#. Imagine a load monitor that plays a symphony when the server is empty and nothing more than a scale on a piano when full? Even if you don't come up with such an original idea yourself, you can still take inspiration from it and apply it to your own endeavors.
He wasn't disputing that the amount in the universe is constant, he was disputing the idea that the amount in any given subset of the universe is constant. We take in energy from the outside. That's the counterpoint to entropy that allows us to function. A nuclear reactor spends fuel that would require more energy to produce than would be released in the reactor. Thus, we acquire more from the environment to sustain the process. All of these processes that acquire materials for energy production must necessarily acquire more energy than it expends, or it would be counterproductive. The energy was always there; we just go and get it.
Now, the previous post argued that all processes must decrease the total amount of energy available; this is not true because not all energy is available.
Now THAT's how to play Dance Dance Revolution.
CGI stands for Computer Generated Image as well as Common Gateway Interface.
Of course, CGI != Perl. CGI is not a programming language or some weird acronym for perl. CGI is an interface; it's a way for information to get from the web server to the program.