Huh? nofollow doesn't stop anybody from linking to anything. All it does is telling search engines "don't count this in the pagerank", so that the link doesn't have an effect on the site's position in the search ranking.
While you bring up good points, 400K landlords?! You're kidding, right?
Most people in SL buy land to have a place of their own, not to get into the land business. The vast majority of the population wouldn't mind at all if land suddenly got a lot cheaper.
The ones that would care would be a select very few, like Anshe Chung, for instance.
But surely that 10% is an average calculated for a given set of edible things people normally eat?
Say, if I swallowed a glass ball, would I get any energy from it? AFAIK, hair doesn't get digested either. More normal examples would be cellulose and distilled water. That stuff has to cause the body to spend some energy to produce various substances to try to digest it, then move it through the body until it gets expelled.
It sounds to me like kdawson doesn't know the enlightenment topic refers to a window manager, and instead uses it in the cultural (education, spread of knowledge) sense.
While math certainly helps a lot, that doesn't imply the ability of writing good code. It's great if you can write an efficient algorithm, but that doesn't mean you can write clean, maintainable code. For example, some of my classmates would write code that was uncommented, unmaintainable, had memory leaks, and would barf on the slightest typo (or worse, generate complete garbage on the output)
To put it in another way, while I'm sure a physicist could figure out how to make a building that doesn't collapse, that doesn't mean you'd like living in it.
An interesting thing I noticed is the disagreement of what is "math" when talking about programming. I think it's a matter where you come from. If you started with mathematics and went into programming, then I guess everything is math.
On the other hand, a self-taught programmer often sees pretty much everything as "programming". "Math" is then algebra and all that boring stuff they learned in school like trigonometry, which they never use when coding. From this point of view, graphs, trees, recursion, etc are just programming concepts and not seen as necessarily related to the underlying mathematics.
This seems to explain the confusion that occurs when a student asks "do I need math?" to an experienced professional. The student understands math as in elementary algebra, trigonomery, derivation and matrices, and wonders what's the point all of all that when probably nowhere in the Linux kernel there's any need to derivate anything.
That's again a different matter. There's 3 possible sources of value for a Gutenberg bible:
One that it's an instance of one of the first books printed. These days books are made with different means, so if you wanted to study old books, how they hold up and decay then it's valuable.
If on the other hand, you're interested in the contents, a modern cheaply printed equivalent is just as good if not better.
Finally, it's an Original Gutenberg Bible (TM). This is the part I think is bullshit. For me the only two sources of value are physical characteristics or content, age and past ownership or usage is meaningless. Of course, should I find one of those I'll gladly sell it for lots of cash, while thinking "sucker".
Second Life Not really a game, more like a chatroom. There are people to talk to, games to play, FPS-style areas, etc.
Lugaru The graphics aren't great, but there's something nice about murderous bunnies. The ragdoll physics can be quite amusing. Kicking dead enemies into still alive ones can be quite satisfying.
One Must Fall Ancient, but very good. It lacks the complexity of newer games, but that makes it very easy to play. The lack of complexity also makes it quite relaxing, as it doesn't have the frustration levels of games like Killer Instinct (those combos look cool, but I really hate it when they're used against me)
Neverwinter Nights Very good RPG. Multiplayer games are really great, and there's always the possibility of pausing the game and giving orders.
Magical Drop 3 Ok, this is only comforting at the lower levels. In the later levels the speed is insane, and the danger of RSI is rather high, but it's still really fun.
Actual answer: Because unlike other sites (like kuro5hin) that require you to write something in the title, slashdot stupidly makes the default subject "Re:", so 99% of the subject lines on slashdot are useless and skipped by the readers.
A quite possible side effect of this is higher database load. Unlike kuro5hin, slashdot's threaded mode is completely useless, as trees with 50 posts are rendered as 50 lines with the same title, not giving the slightest indication of whether there might be something worth reading there or not.
You're talking about completely different things here. One is that there's more value in an object than in its components. Nobody disputes that a statue is worth more than the bronze it's made of.
But what the grandparent is talking about is the added value of an object due to belonging to somebody or being the "original" used somewhere. For example, underwear has a worth on a market. The same underwear is for some reason worth a lot more if it belonged to Marylin Monroe, something that IMO is plain bizarre.
You got me curious, so I ran sloccount on postgresql 8.0.8:
Totals grouped by language (dominant language first): ansic: 397855 (93.27%) yacc: 13585 (3.18%) lex: 5495 (1.29%) perl: 4820 (1.13%) sh: 4698 (1.10%) asm: 70 (0.02%) awk: 20 (0.00%)
Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC) = 426,543
Not the smallest, but not millions of lines either.
Interestingly enough, mysql 4.1.21 is a lot larger, with 875,095 lines. SQLite is 74,317 lines, although it's a rather crappy database in comparison to any of those. It has uses of course, but plenty limitations as well.
It looks like lately spamming botnets are getting popular. It's easy enough, infect lots of computers, then use them to relay spam working around the blacklists. At least something will get through, and given enough boxes, a LOT will get through.
By MASSIVELY increasing address space, IPv6 will make brute force scanning completely impractical. Currently a single box with a good connection can test every IPv4 address in a short time (measured in hours IIRC), IPv6 will make that impossible.
That means it won't be possible to randomly infect computers anymore, attackers will have gather address lists somewhere and target specific addresses. And that's going to make it a lot easier to find the point of origin and neutralize it.
Not only that, but with IPv6 there's no need for NAT or dynamic address assignation anymore, which means that an ISP just gives out everybody a subnet and forgets about it. Now bans can be a lot more precise as you can definitively ban a single computer, then escalate to banning the whole connection.
Do you know that you can change your MAC address when you want it? You could use the same mechanism to your advantage instead, changing it constantly and make it look as if there was an entire server room on that connection.
They can write books and have conferences, but as long as people like me work quietly together towards the common goal, we can keep IPv6 where it belongs - in the gutter.
Sorry to break it for you, but your opinion doesn't matter a damn. What matters is: Do the government and big companies want it? If so, they'll drag the rest of people with them. If the government requires it, ISPs will provide it. If companies implement it, then their sysadmins will go setup their and their friends' home networks with it.
My point is simply that it's a philosophy that has harmed Debian as well as its users.
My point is that Debian never claimed to be something else. Those users simply made the wrong choice, and perhaps Debian should have never got so popular in the first place.
Continuing my earlier example, if you decide to buy a $350 computer from Dell it would be a bit stupid to then complain that it looks cheap (well, duh), that performance is unimpressive, and that the stability of components selected to be absolutely as cheap as possible leaves something to be desired.
People actually go and do that, of course, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong with Dell, just that people that bought Dell computers and then regretted it underestimated what they wanted, and how much it would cost to provide that. Same way, people who have a problem with Debian's obsession with Free Software shouldn't have went with it in the first place, as Debian never pretended they're not going to be picky with licensing issues.
This is a bit disengenous, as thalidomide has specific effects (primarily by blocking angiogenesis) and is quite useful in individuals who have leprosy and won't be undergoing angiogenesis (that is, they are adults.) In other words, unless your a fetus or embryo undergoing vasculogenesis or angiogenesis, it may not be harmful.
Actually, I know, and I have pointed that out in one of my posts.
What I meant to say is that she was lucky it had harmful effects. Had it happened to be harmless, the perception of what she did would have been vastly different, even thought the acts themselves would have been equally valid.
Why is it that the only objection people can come up with is setting up a ridiculous strawman ("Let's stop all production")? I can do that as well, why don't we just eliminate all safety controls? Who cares if we poison rivers, decimate ecosystems, and give thousands of children horrific mutations? The free market will figure it out.
Nobody is talking about making everything 100% safe. Nothing is. The thing is achieving a balance, where reasonable precautions are taken to ensure some rather vital things, like that water remains drinkable.
Read the quote. It says: "In the context of chemicals management, it means that when (on the basis of available evidence) the use of a chemical or groups of chemicals may harm human health or the environment, action to eliminate the use of the chemical(s) should be taken - even if the full extent of harm has not yet been fully established scientifically. It recognises that such proof of harm may never be possible, at least until it is too late to avoid or reverse the damage done. "
Meaning, if we already know a chemical might be harmful, but we don't have a full chemical analysis yet, then, just in case we should stop using it until we can be sure it's safe. Doesn't sound particularly unreasonable to me.
No, I was merely pointing out how the Debian project prioritizes internal, semantic and ultimately meaningless debates over its own users. The Debian project puts ideals and arguments over them ahead of the people who just want to use the software.
But see, that is what Debian is. Debian is about those ideals. What you want is Debian without what makes it be Debian, which is plain nonsense. It's like saying "You know, I'd really like an Apple computer, if only they sold them for $350". Apple will never sell you a computer for $350 because they're all about polish. If you want the cheapest possible, you go with Dell. Trying to turn Apple into Dell or Dell into Apple is a stupid idea: We're better as we are now because both of them cater to different needs. A combination would be just mediocre and uninteresting.
Yes, Debian of course loses users by prioritizing the philosophy part. And Apple loses customers by not offering cheap computers whose components change depending on who is offering RAM a penny cheaper this week, and my local computer shop loses my money by not carrying server boards and equipment.
The most popular distro around right now uses almost exactly the same package management system, etc script organization and so on (aka distro "guts") as Debian and is prospering while Debian falters. What's different? A user-first philosophy.
So what's the problem? Go use Ubuntu and let Debian die then.
But again. Saying that Debian should ignore one of the main reasons for their existence is like saying that Greenpeace should get into the oil business because it's a lot more profitable.
The way I understand it is:
Debian wasn't started to satisfy somebody's desire of Linux world dominance, or even to make a popular distro that caters to everybody's need. It was started with the aim of sticking to the free software philosophy and making a distro following it. That's the aim, and that's what they're sticking to. If it fails, then oh well, there are plenty alternatives around to replace them.
Yes, Debian could be stop being so "uptight" about Free Software but then it wouldn't be Debian anymore. Gentoo could also switch to binary packages as well, but then it wouldn't be Gentoo anymore. And it's not like there aren't Debian-based distros around if that's what you want.
But that's your desire, not Debian's. Debian's aim is to build a free software distro. They're not a company trying to make a profit, they don't need the marketshare.
Your own argument makes equally little sense, as you're simply taking it into the opposite direction.
Let me continue that train of thought. Why not remove all safety controls? If you can't prove something is 100% safe, why bother? Think about the great things we could have if we didn't have to do things like testing whether food is poisonous, or whether cosmetics will give you skin cancer, or make sure that a car doesn't fall to pieces on the road or blow up in a collision.
We could have such wonderful things as the Happy Fun Ball as an actual consumer product!
Nobody's saying we should discard useful things because they might hurt somebody somewhere. But we've got to study things first, and evaluate risk correctly. That's why I thought the thalidomide example was so good: Was it really worth it to have your child born with horrific malformations in exchange for not having morning sickness? Hell no! But, it turns out that it alleviates a very painful complication of leprosy. Thalidomide is still useful, when applied in a situation where its worst side effect is inexistent (men or non-pregnant women), and where the other one (peripheral neuropathy) is outweighted by the benefit of alleviating horrible pain in a patient who is in a very bad condition anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? nofollow doesn't stop anybody from linking to anything. All it does is telling search engines "don't count this in the pagerank", so that the link doesn't have an effect on the site's position in the search ranking.
While you bring up good points, 400K landlords?! You're kidding, right?
Most people in SL buy land to have a place of their own, not to get into the land business. The vast majority of the population wouldn't mind at all if land suddenly got a lot cheaper.
The ones that would care would be a select very few, like Anshe Chung, for instance.
But surely that 10% is an average calculated for a given set of edible things people normally eat?
Say, if I swallowed a glass ball, would I get any energy from it? AFAIK, hair doesn't get digested either. More normal examples would be cellulose and distilled water. That stuff has to cause the body to spend some energy to produce various substances to try to digest it, then move it through the body until it gets expelled.
It sounds to me like kdawson doesn't know the enlightenment topic refers to a window manager, and instead uses it in the cultural (education, spread of knowledge) sense.
Darn, I was about to post exactly that.
Here goes another vote for the humping ice weasel.
I'm not so sure of that.
While math certainly helps a lot, that doesn't imply the ability of writing good code. It's great if you can write an efficient algorithm, but that doesn't mean you can write clean, maintainable code. For example, some of my classmates would write code that was uncommented, unmaintainable, had memory leaks, and would barf on the slightest typo (or worse, generate complete garbage on the output)
To put it in another way, while I'm sure a physicist could figure out how to make a building that doesn't collapse, that doesn't mean you'd like living in it.
An interesting thing I noticed is the disagreement of what is "math" when talking about programming. I think it's a matter where you come from. If you started with mathematics and went into programming, then I guess everything is math.
On the other hand, a self-taught programmer often sees pretty much everything as "programming". "Math" is then algebra and all that boring stuff they learned in school like trigonometry, which they never use when coding. From this point of view, graphs, trees, recursion, etc are just programming concepts and not seen as necessarily related to the underlying mathematics.
This seems to explain the confusion that occurs when a student asks "do I need math?" to an experienced professional. The student understands math as in elementary algebra, trigonomery, derivation and matrices, and wonders what's the point all of all that when probably nowhere in the Linux kernel there's any need to derivate anything.
Well, it seems there has been some progress on that lately: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/vitrification.ht ml
That's again a different matter. There's 3 possible sources of value for a Gutenberg bible:
One that it's an instance of one of the first books printed. These days books are made with different means, so if you wanted to study old books, how they hold up and decay then it's valuable.
If on the other hand, you're interested in the contents, a modern cheaply printed equivalent is just as good if not better.
Finally, it's an Original Gutenberg Bible (TM). This is the part I think is bullshit. For me the only two sources of value are physical characteristics or content, age and past ownership or usage is meaningless. Of course, should I find one of those I'll gladly sell it for lots of cash, while thinking "sucker".
Second Life Not really a game, more like a chatroom. There are people to talk to, games to play, FPS-style areas, etc.
Lugaru The graphics aren't great, but there's something nice about murderous bunnies. The ragdoll physics can be quite amusing. Kicking dead enemies into still alive ones can be quite satisfying.
One Must Fall Ancient, but very good. It lacks the complexity of newer games, but that makes it very easy to play. The lack of complexity also makes it quite relaxing, as it doesn't have the frustration levels of games like Killer Instinct (those combos look cool, but I really hate it when they're used against me)
Neverwinter Nights Very good RPG. Multiplayer games are really great, and there's always the possibility of pausing the game and giving orders.
Magical Drop 3 Ok, this is only comforting at the lower levels. In the later levels the speed is insane, and the danger of RSI is rather high, but it's still really fun.
Actual answer: Because unlike other sites (like kuro5hin) that require you to write something in the title, slashdot stupidly makes the default subject "Re:", so 99% of the subject lines on slashdot are useless and skipped by the readers.
A quite possible side effect of this is higher database load. Unlike kuro5hin, slashdot's threaded mode is completely useless, as trees with 50 posts are rendered as 50 lines with the same title, not giving the slightest indication of whether there might be something worth reading there or not.
Oh, bullshit.
You're talking about completely different things here. One is that there's more value in an object than in its components. Nobody disputes that a statue is worth more than the bronze it's made of.
But what the grandparent is talking about is the added value of an object due to belonging to somebody or being the "original" used somewhere. For example, underwear has a worth on a market. The same underwear is for some reason worth a lot more if it belonged to Marylin Monroe, something that IMO is plain bizarre.
You know what? I don't give a damn.
If there's any sort of DRM, I don't buy it, that simple.
Interestingly enough, mysql 4.1.21 is a lot larger, with 875,095 lines.
SQLite is 74,317 lines, although it's a rather crappy database in comparison to any of those. It has uses of course, but plenty limitations as well.
Yawn. You're right, yet you provide absolutely zero explanation why. I have provided mine. Where's your?
What a bizarre question.
How would you learn anything at all if you couldn't remember what you did and what were the results?
Actually, no, it'll help a lot.
It looks like lately spamming botnets are getting popular. It's easy enough, infect lots of computers, then use them to relay spam working around the blacklists. At least something will get through, and given enough boxes, a LOT will get through.
By MASSIVELY increasing address space, IPv6 will make brute force scanning completely impractical. Currently a single box with a good connection can test every IPv4 address in a short time (measured in hours IIRC), IPv6 will make that impossible.
That means it won't be possible to randomly infect computers anymore, attackers will have gather address lists somewhere and target specific addresses. And that's going to make it a lot easier to find the point of origin and neutralize it.
Not only that, but with IPv6 there's no need for NAT or dynamic address assignation anymore, which means that an ISP just gives out everybody a subnet and forgets about it. Now bans can be a lot more precise as you can definitively ban a single computer, then escalate to banning the whole connection.
Do you know that you can change your MAC address when you want it? You could use the same mechanism to your advantage instead, changing it constantly and make it look as if there was an entire server room on that connection.
Sorry to break it for you, but your opinion doesn't matter a damn. What matters is: Do the government and big companies want it? If so, they'll drag the rest of people with them. If the government requires it, ISPs will provide it. If companies implement it, then their sysadmins will go setup their and their friends' home networks with it.
My point is that Debian never claimed to be something else. Those users simply made the wrong choice, and perhaps Debian should have never got so popular in the first place.
Continuing my earlier example, if you decide to buy a $350 computer from Dell it would be a bit stupid to then complain that it looks cheap (well, duh), that performance is unimpressive, and that the stability of components selected to be absolutely as cheap as possible leaves something to be desired.
People actually go and do that, of course, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong with Dell, just that people that bought Dell computers and then regretted it underestimated what they wanted, and how much it would cost to provide that. Same way, people who have a problem with Debian's obsession with Free Software shouldn't have went with it in the first place, as Debian never pretended they're not going to be picky with licensing issues.
Actually, I know, and I have pointed that out in one of my posts.
What I meant to say is that she was lucky it had harmful effects. Had it happened to be harmless, the perception of what she did would have been vastly different, even thought the acts themselves would have been equally valid.
Why is it that the only objection people can come up with is setting up a ridiculous strawman ("Let's stop all production")? I can do that as well, why don't we just eliminate all safety controls? Who cares if we poison rivers, decimate ecosystems, and give thousands of children horrific mutations? The free market will figure it out.
Nobody is talking about making everything 100% safe. Nothing is. The thing is achieving a balance, where reasonable precautions are taken to ensure some rather vital things, like that water remains drinkable.
Read the quote. It says:
"In the context of chemicals management, it means that when (on the basis of available evidence) the use of a chemical or groups of chemicals may harm human health or the environment, action to eliminate the use of the chemical(s) should be taken - even if the full extent of harm has not yet been fully established scientifically. It recognises that such proof of harm may never be possible, at least until it is too late to avoid or reverse the damage done. "
Meaning, if we already know a chemical might be harmful, but we don't have a full chemical analysis yet, then, just in case we should stop using it until we can be sure it's safe. Doesn't sound particularly unreasonable to me.
No, I was merely pointing out how the Debian project prioritizes internal, semantic and ultimately meaningless debates over its own users. The Debian project puts ideals and arguments over them ahead of the people who just want to use the software.
But see, that is what Debian is. Debian is about those ideals. What you want is Debian without what makes it be Debian, which is plain nonsense. It's like saying "You know, I'd really like an Apple computer, if only they sold them for $350". Apple will never sell you a computer for $350 because they're all about polish. If you want the cheapest possible, you go with Dell. Trying to turn Apple into Dell or Dell into Apple is a stupid idea: We're better as we are now because both of them cater to different needs. A combination would be just mediocre and uninteresting.
Yes, Debian of course loses users by prioritizing the philosophy part. And Apple loses customers by not offering cheap computers whose components change depending on who is offering RAM a penny cheaper this week, and my local computer shop loses my money by not carrying server boards and equipment.
The most popular distro around right now uses almost exactly the same package management system, etc script organization and so on (aka distro "guts") as Debian and is prospering while Debian falters. What's different? A user-first philosophy.
So what's the problem? Go use Ubuntu and let Debian die then.
But again. Saying that Debian should ignore one of the main reasons for their existence is like saying that Greenpeace should get into the oil business because it's a lot more profitable.
The way I understand it is:
Debian wasn't started to satisfy somebody's desire of Linux world dominance, or even to make a popular distro that caters to everybody's need. It was started with the aim of sticking to the free software philosophy and making a distro following it. That's the aim, and that's what they're sticking to. If it fails, then oh well, there are plenty alternatives around to replace them.
Yes, Debian could be stop being so "uptight" about Free Software but then it wouldn't be Debian anymore. Gentoo could also switch to binary packages as well, but then it wouldn't be Gentoo anymore. And it's not like there aren't Debian-based distros around if that's what you want.
But that's your desire, not Debian's. Debian's aim is to build a free software distro. They're not a company trying to make a profit, they don't need the marketshare.
Your own argument makes equally little sense, as you're simply taking it into the opposite direction.
Let me continue that train of thought. Why not remove all safety controls? If you can't prove something is 100% safe, why bother? Think about the great things we could have if we didn't have to do things like testing whether food is poisonous, or whether cosmetics will give you skin cancer, or make sure that a car doesn't fall to pieces on the road or blow up in a collision.
We could have such wonderful things as the Happy Fun Ball as an actual consumer product!
Nobody's saying we should discard useful things because they might hurt somebody somewhere. But we've got to study things first, and evaluate risk correctly. That's why I thought the thalidomide example was so good: Was it really worth it to have your child born with horrific malformations in exchange for not having morning sickness? Hell no! But, it turns out that it alleviates a very painful complication of leprosy. Thalidomide is still useful, when applied in a situation where its worst side effect is inexistent (men or non-pregnant women), and where the other one (peripheral neuropathy) is outweighted by the benefit of alleviating horrible pain in a patient who is in a very bad condition anyway.