You suggest reading the article, yet the article says explicitly that this is the only distro other than OpenBSD (or, in one case, FreeBSD, and at the beginning, "encumbered" unices. So I guess I wonder, what would you know if somebody from the Trusted Debian project said, "The answer is seven."
It seems to me that your question is poorly phrased. What is it that you really wonder?
Here in my office, we're all using PowerBook G4s with the wireless networking. This has made reconfiguring the workspace very easy over time, as we don't have to keep rerunning cable. But, when we use the Apple Filesharing Protocol to copy files from one computer to another, if the file is bigger than a megabyte the transfer hangs.
At this point, one must force-quit the Finder, but that doesn't really solve the problems: other processes are running okay, but the OS can't start new ones. And if you try to shut down cleanly, it doesn't work -- you just wind up spinning for minutes, waiting for something to happen (like maybe initd finally getting the KILL) until we wind up doing a hard shutdown (hold the power button for a while).
Our solution so far has been: use scp and our corporate fileshare server, but that's less than perfect. On the other hand, it's not nearly so bad as the hang & reboot that's required when we try to transfer anything of size over AFP or via iChat/Rendezvous.
There is not any such thing as technology that is inherently Dangerous.
bzzzt, thanks for playing, here are some lovely parting gifts...
'dangerous' from Webster's: Attended or beset with danger; full of risk; perilous; hazardous; unsafe.
One may adopt policies and follow procedures to minimize the inherent risk in handling, for instance, nitroglycerine, but ultimately the substance itself is unstable and there is the hazard of an explosion attendant upon all interactions with the stuff.
I think that what you meant to suggest is that technology is morally neutral -- that is, that it is not inherently evil or good, but is just a tool that can be used to evil or good ends. This position is a bit more defensible, but it's hardly straightforward.
That's funny because by definition Objectivists are pragmatic.
That's funny, since I haven't yet met an Objectivist who wasn't more concerned with the purity of the way things ought to be than about dealing with the way things are to achieve the desired result.
I'll stipulate that in theory, Objectivists should be pragmatic. However, in practice I find that Objectivists are about as pragmatic as 2nd year philosophy majors.
Back when I first worked at Apple in a QA lab, we had a PowerBook which one day booted up with the Chimes of Death. We tried to power it down the hard way (hold the power button 5 seconds) and the thing just booted up again. So then we unplugged it and did the hard power off. It rebooted. So then we took out the battery and did a hard power off. It rebooted, but there wasn't enough power to keep it going so it shut down by itself...and rebooted. Eventually, the battery on the motherboard ran out of juice and the bong - do DEE doo combo stopped. That was a pretty cool failure.
Direct Rectal Extraction (well, okay, not quite -- but I Am Not In College Admissions, I am merely a programmer who's been working at it professionally for 10 years):
Some. Depends on what you wind up doing. A PhD will get you higher wages, but don't do it for the money. One of my professors began his first lecture with the question, "Why are you all here? Why are you CS majors?" One guy obligingly responded, "For the money!" The prof. said, "No! If you were just here for the money, you'd be taking pre-law or pre-med. No, you're here because it's easy!" Don't go for a degree for the money, do it because you enjoy it.
If you get a double-E, you'll be a hell of a lot more employable than any CS degree. Remember this about employment: the HR department wants to check off the box that says you've got a 4 year degree, but the hiring manager doesn't care about that. The hiring manager wants someone who can do the job. That EE will expose you to programming and a little bit of program design (although that'll be weaker than what a CS would show you), but you'll have a boatload more math and physics, meaning that you'll have opportunities that no CS grad would have, while being able to do a lot of the entry-level grunt coding that a CS degree would qualify you for. The real question is, what interests you more: designing and implementing software systems, or desigingn and implementing electrical systems?
Yes.
Absolutely. Admissions officers love to see extracurricular activities when they're coupled with good grades (it shows you are motivated and that you can do classwork even when you're burdened with extra work). Scholarships vary wildly, and applying for them is one of the few things high school guidance counselors are okay at.
Oh yeah, I wouldn't undo my university experience (blatant plug, there). Not only was the coursework excellent, but the social aspect -- making friends and connections, for one thing -- was very helpful. Ultimately, the value of higher education is greater than just a degree and a salary; it's in personal development as well.
You would be wrong, but you may certainly argue that way.
Freedom == capability. Security == ensuring that unauthorized capability does not exist.
Therefore, security implies both the notion of authorization (and some restrictive authority) and the explicit placing of restrictions upon freedom. Merely arrogating to oneself the role of restrictive authority, as libertarians and fascists advocate, does not change this truth, nor does the communist or democratic vestiture of this role in some selected group of people.
I dunno, that didn't look like a personal attack to me. Sure, one could interpret it that way, but think about it: all the reviewer has to go on is the material. If the material asserts that software engineering is X and then later on the material presents software engineering as z, theta, and epsilon, each of which is !X, then the only conclusion one can come to is that the material does not present a consistent description of software engineering and the author of the material either doesn't know, or changed his mind several times and didn't edit well.
Well, Europeans were fooling around with logarithms and making tables of logarithms in the 17th century. In only a few years after tables of logarithms were published, the slide rule was invented.
So really, ask rather, "What complex problems were being worked on and solved before slide rules?" And how many significant digits did people care about? For most purposes, three significant digits (and the appropriate unit of measure) are all you need.
Heh. If only it were the limit, then it'd be a nonissue. But what if the password on your webmail account allows the attacker to get shell access to that machine, and then exploit some local root hole? It's conceivable.
Right, but remember that wasn't the question. The question had to do with bundling the GPLed JAR with the author's program.
Take a Jakarta/Tomcat servlet example: you write your servlet and part of its logic calls out to some GPLed JAR -- maybe some super-nifty XML parser or something. So you build a WAR file that can be dropped into any Tomcat webapps directory to enable the servlet. The WAR file contains your code, but it also contains that pesky GPLed JAR -- which means that you have to release the WAR file under the GPL.
Now, the easy way I see to get around this is to ship your WAR without the GPLed JAR inside it and in the distribution notes you say something like, "This servlet requires a super-nifty XML parser in order to load and run, and it needs to implement org.sumdumgai.niftyParser. You can get one of those over at some.place.else/nifty.jar for instance, but whatever you use, you need to modify myservlet.properties so the servlet knows where to find the class to use." Bada-bing, you can now release this servlet under something that isn't GPL -- just make sure that your warranty states that the thing isn't guaranteed to do anything other than take up storage space.
I have found that being polite has several wonderful benefits:
the other party tends to reciprocate, making the interaction civil and therefore less stressful
often, the other party is so pleased to encounter someone who extends a bit of courtesy that he or she will perform services not usually rendered (oh, here, let me take care of that for you -- it's no problem -- have a great day!)
it shortens unwanted interactions. If you want to talk to me and I don't particularly want to talk to you (typical for telemarketers for instance), then if I'm polite and clear you'll finish the transaction quickly. But if I'm rude, the transaction takes longer to complete and may be reinitiated multiple times.
As another poster noted, San Francisco has some pretty good hills in the middle. Actually, I've heard that the city is only 7 miles across at its widest point, but there isn't a road that goes along that route.
What really takes the long time, though, is that there are no limited access roadways going through the city, so every couple of blocks you have either a stop sign or a traffic signal. The streets downtown were laid out for horses and pedestrians, not for cars, so the lanes are desperately close together. Yes, you can split 'em, but it's not like lane splitting down in Los Angeles -- lane splitting in San Francisco is the Big Time, and it's gotten me nearly killed a couple of times (low speed collisions twice, and hair's breadth misses from high speed cars). The effective speed when you're moving at all is about 25 mph, with occasional bursts up to 30. Out past the hills to the west, it speeds up to 45. I easily spent 2/3 of the commute time on the 1/3 of the trip closest to downtown. Splitting lanes does no good if the light's red, and so what if you go hell-bent for a block, only to have to stop for the next light?
When I lived in San Francisco, I lived on the westernmost edge of the city and worked on the easternmost edge, a distance of about 7.5 miles by the most direct road. I also happened to live at the end of a streetcar line (N Judah, no I didn't think you cared) that ran practically to my office. So, I could drive my car, ride the train, or ride a bicycle to work. It took about 20 minutes to drive the car, and another 10 to 15 minutes to park and then walk to my office in the morning, with the return trip taking about 30 minutes. On the train, it was 45 minutes each way unless there was some sort of problem on the subway and we got stuck for an hour underground (only happened once or twice a month). With my bicycle, I could get to my office in 30 minutes, and get home in about 40 minutes (less energy at the end of the day). Oh, and if I rode my motorcycle, it was 25 minutes each way, no worries.
Frankly, the car was the worst option and I wound up giving it away and just riding either my bicycle or my motorcycle.
I reckon that in London, as in any other major metropolitan area, the people who drive their cars in feel like they need to drive to get everything done. If they don't need the cars, they'll use other ways of getting around. But to be better than a car, transit would have to be either significantly more convenient or significantly and reliably faster.
There must be a way. I work in an office where we're subleasing the space and the guys who were here before left a bunch of equipment. Among it all there's an HP LaserJet 4050N (which has a built-in JetDirect card). We are all using PowerBook G4s running OS X 10.2.3. So imagine my delight when I needed to print some source code out and it came time to set up the printer. It went something like this:
Open up Print Center
Click the "Add Printer" button
Select "AppleTalk" as the protocol
Select the printer that appeared
Dang! I didn't know that JetDirect cards supported AppleTalk! So the moral there is, somewhere in some obscure technical bulletin (probably, knowing HP) there are instructions for setting the name of the JetDirect card.
The really sweet part came a few weeks later when I wanted to print a document from OpenOffice. I had never configured the printer settings within X11, and have never even touched/etc/printcap. I selected "Print" and then immediately began wondering where the print job was going to spool to. But it just worked! cups seems to have been informed about the printer selection. Very nice.
This contrasts very favorably to the time 8 months ago when I configured my Dell laptop with RedHat 7.3 to print to the LaserJet at home.
We've spent too much money on the ISS to abandon it.
I'm bullish on space. I like the idea of humans poking around off Earth. But that sentence is utter crap. It's a classic example of what's meant by the phrase, "throwing good money after bad." We may abandon the ISS because Russia can't keep up its funding. We may abandon the ISS because our own support infrastructure is failing. We may abandon the ISS because there's no really convincing scientific or political reason to keep it up. Or we may keep it going, because it is providing us with some value. But I guarantee that having spent gobs of money on something is no reason at all to keep spending more money on it.
Think about it like this: you have a hole that you want filled up, so you can pave it over and make a parking lot. You could throw money into the hole to fill it up, but at some point you might realize that dirt would be cheaper. Do you keep throwing money into the hole, because you've already spent so much? Or do you cut your losses?
You mean besides marijuana, hops, and avocados (in which the plant is either male or female)? Or any other flowering plant (in which both "male" gametes and "female" zygotes are produced)?
iCommune shares the files via Apache (OS X comes with Apache installed). So one could, in theory, share these with anyone, not just with people in Rendezvous range.
iTunes doesn't share at all right now. iCommune lets it do so. How about if I tell the taco vendor at the corner to shut down now because I'm building a taqueria on that corner three months from now? You want a taco now? Too bad...
As others are saying, this is a license issue, and I haven't yet seen anyone posting details as to what part of the license was violated. Do remember, though, that Apple is even more anticompetitive than Microsoft. It's just that Apple's products tend to work fairly well, and they have a miniscule market share, so nobody notices much.
I have a FreeBSD machine over at Rackspace, and I found out the hard way what they meant. They only support out-of-the-box distributions. So if you cvsup the source and then rebuild your world and kernel, then if anything goes wrong with the system (say, for instance, a disk fries) they won't perform support operations as part of your built-in service fees (since you're not running on a standard configuration). Instead, you'll have to pay a premium for the support.
You're missing the best part about the California system. Now, it's true that what Proposition 13 did was make it so that the state can't reappraise the property until it is sold or improved (I'm fuzzy on this, but essentially it means that if you build a new room onto the back of your house, they can reappraise, but if you just knock out a wall in between kitchen and dining room, they can't), so this means that long-term property holders get the tax burden shifted away from them and onto new owners.
The brilliant part is that although this was sold to the electorate as protecting granny in her old house, the "people" it really protects are the business landlords. Most companies don't own their buildings, they lease them long term. So when a business relocates, the owner of the space hasn't changed and the property doesn't get reappraised. Does this rock or what?
This means that the business that's giving people two communities over jobs ('cause the people can't afford to live across the street from the office) isn't paying property taxes (via increased rent to the landlord) to the community whose infrastructure (roads, electrical & phone grid, sewers, water, etc.) it's impacting. Or at least, the taxes it is paying are adjusted to property values as of 30 years ago and not current values.
Some places responded to this with payroll taxes, but that's an even thornier issue than property taxes. What should happen is that the people who benefit from the infrastructure should pay to support it. But what is happening is that the people who pay for the infrastructure are mostly people who haven't yet had the opportunity to derive maximal benefit from it, while the long-term benefits are going to people who haven't been paying their fair share.
i'm guessing those companies don't pay the normal 37 cents an item mailing rate (i'm assuming they get some sort of bulk mailer rate? am i wrong?)
You're right. They get a break because they're presorting the pieces of mail and bundling together the pieces that go to the same ZIP code, which saves the Post Office a lot of work. On the other hand, they have some restrictions on what kinds of mail can be sent at this discount. It all has to be the same (in a given mailing), if not enough pieces are going to a 5 digit zip, then a higher rate applies (for 3 digit zip, and then if not enough there, they have to pay full rate), and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno, man. Where do you get the extra step?
I heard it first as:
1. steal underpants
2. ?
3. profit!
What more is necessary? Just steal underpants!
You suggest reading the article, yet the article says explicitly that this is the only distro other than OpenBSD (or, in one case, FreeBSD, and at the beginning, "encumbered" unices. So I guess I wonder, what would you know if somebody from the Trusted Debian project said, "The answer is seven."
It seems to me that your question is poorly phrased. What is it that you really wonder?
Here in my office, we're all using PowerBook G4s with the wireless networking. This has made reconfiguring the workspace very easy over time, as we don't have to keep rerunning cable. But, when we use the Apple Filesharing Protocol to copy files from one computer to another, if the file is bigger than a megabyte the transfer hangs.
At this point, one must force-quit the Finder, but that doesn't really solve the problems: other processes are running okay, but the OS can't start new ones. And if you try to shut down cleanly, it doesn't work -- you just wind up spinning for minutes, waiting for something to happen (like maybe initd finally getting the KILL) until we wind up doing a hard shutdown (hold the power button for a while).
Our solution so far has been: use scp and our corporate fileshare server, but that's less than perfect. On the other hand, it's not nearly so bad as the hang & reboot that's required when we try to transfer anything of size over AFP or via iChat/Rendezvous.
There is not any such thing as technology that is inherently Dangerous.
bzzzt, thanks for playing, here are some lovely parting gifts...
'dangerous' from Webster's: Attended or beset with danger; full of risk; perilous; hazardous; unsafe.
One may adopt policies and follow procedures to minimize the inherent risk in handling, for instance, nitroglycerine, but ultimately the substance itself is unstable and there is the hazard of an explosion attendant upon all interactions with the stuff.
I think that what you meant to suggest is that technology is morally neutral -- that is, that it is not inherently evil or good, but is just a tool that can be used to evil or good ends. This position is a bit more defensible, but it's hardly straightforward.
That's funny because by definition Objectivists are pragmatic.
That's funny, since I haven't yet met an Objectivist who wasn't more concerned with the purity of the way things ought to be than about dealing with the way things are to achieve the desired result.
I'll stipulate that in theory, Objectivists should be pragmatic. However, in practice I find that Objectivists are about as pragmatic as 2nd year philosophy majors.
Back when I first worked at Apple in a QA lab, we had a PowerBook which one day booted up with the Chimes of Death. We tried to power it down the hard way (hold the power button 5 seconds) and the thing just booted up again. So then we unplugged it and did the hard power off. It rebooted. So then we took out the battery and did a hard power off. It rebooted, but there wasn't enough power to keep it going so it shut down by itself...and rebooted. Eventually, the battery on the motherboard ran out of juice and the bong - do DEE doo combo stopped. That was a pretty cool failure.
You would be wrong, but you may certainly argue that way.
Freedom == capability. Security == ensuring that unauthorized capability does not exist.
Therefore, security implies both the notion of authorization (and some restrictive authority) and the explicit placing of restrictions upon freedom. Merely arrogating to oneself the role of restrictive authority, as libertarians and fascists advocate, does not change this truth, nor does the communist or democratic vestiture of this role in some selected group of people.
I dunno, that didn't look like a personal attack to me. Sure, one could interpret it that way, but think about it: all the reviewer has to go on is the material. If the material asserts that software engineering is X and then later on the material presents software engineering as z, theta, and epsilon, each of which is !X, then the only conclusion one can come to is that the material does not present a consistent description of software engineering and the author of the material either doesn't know, or changed his mind several times and didn't edit well.
Fuckin' A. "You question my kernel? It's the gulag for you, and your children, and your neighbors, and the people who sold you your computer!"
-1 Flamebait? +5 Funny! -1 Offtopic...
Well, Europeans were fooling around with logarithms and making tables of logarithms in the 17th century. In only a few years after tables of logarithms were published, the slide rule was invented.
So really, ask rather, "What complex problems were being worked on and solved before slide rules?" And how many significant digits did people care about? For most purposes, three significant digits (and the appropriate unit of measure) are all you need.
Heh. If only it were the limit, then it'd be a nonissue. But what if the password on your webmail account allows the attacker to get shell access to that machine, and then exploit some local root hole? It's conceivable.
Take a Jakarta/Tomcat servlet example: you write your servlet and part of its logic calls out to some GPLed JAR -- maybe some super-nifty XML parser or something. So you build a WAR file that can be dropped into any Tomcat webapps directory to enable the servlet. The WAR file contains your code, but it also contains that pesky GPLed JAR -- which means that you have to release the WAR file under the GPL.
Now, the easy way I see to get around this is to ship your WAR without the GPLed JAR inside it and in the distribution notes you say something like, "This servlet requires a super-nifty XML parser in order to load and run, and it needs to implement org.sumdumgai.niftyParser. You can get one of those over at some.place.else/nifty.jar for instance, but whatever you use, you need to modify myservlet.properties so the servlet knows where to find the class to use." Bada-bing, you can now release this servlet under something that isn't GPL -- just make sure that your warranty states that the thing isn't guaranteed to do anything other than take up storage space.
- the other party tends to reciprocate, making the interaction civil and therefore less stressful
- often, the other party is so pleased to encounter someone who extends a bit of courtesy that he or she will perform services not usually rendered (oh, here, let me take care of that for you -- it's no problem -- have a great day!)
- it shortens unwanted interactions. If you want to talk to me and I don't particularly want to talk to you (typical for telemarketers for instance), then if I'm polite and clear you'll finish the transaction quickly. But if I'm rude, the transaction takes longer to complete and may be reinitiated multiple times.
Courtesy -- it's not just for dates.What really takes the long time, though, is that there are no limited access roadways going through the city, so every couple of blocks you have either a stop sign or a traffic signal. The streets downtown were laid out for horses and pedestrians, not for cars, so the lanes are desperately close together. Yes, you can split 'em, but it's not like lane splitting down in Los Angeles -- lane splitting in San Francisco is the Big Time, and it's gotten me nearly killed a couple of times (low speed collisions twice, and hair's breadth misses from high speed cars). The effective speed when you're moving at all is about 25 mph, with occasional bursts up to 30. Out past the hills to the west, it speeds up to 45. I easily spent 2/3 of the commute time on the 1/3 of the trip closest to downtown. Splitting lanes does no good if the light's red, and so what if you go hell-bent for a block, only to have to stop for the next light?
When I lived in San Francisco, I lived on the westernmost edge of the city and worked on the easternmost edge, a distance of about 7.5 miles by the most direct road. I also happened to live at the end of a streetcar line (N Judah, no I didn't think you cared) that ran practically to my office. So, I could drive my car, ride the train, or ride a bicycle to work. It took about 20 minutes to drive the car, and another 10 to 15 minutes to park and then walk to my office in the morning, with the return trip taking about 30 minutes. On the train, it was 45 minutes each way unless there was some sort of problem on the subway and we got stuck for an hour underground (only happened once or twice a month). With my bicycle, I could get to my office in 30 minutes, and get home in about 40 minutes (less energy at the end of the day). Oh, and if I rode my motorcycle, it was 25 minutes each way, no worries.
Frankly, the car was the worst option and I wound up giving it away and just riding either my bicycle or my motorcycle.
I reckon that in London, as in any other major metropolitan area, the people who drive their cars in feel like they need to drive to get everything done. If they don't need the cars, they'll use other ways of getting around. But to be better than a car, transit would have to be either significantly more convenient or significantly and reliably faster.
- Open up Print Center
- Click the "Add Printer" button
- Select "AppleTalk" as the protocol
- Select the printer that appeared
Dang! I didn't know that JetDirect cards supported AppleTalk! So the moral there is, somewhere in some obscure technical bulletin (probably, knowing HP) there are instructions for setting the name of the JetDirect card.The really sweet part came a few weeks later when I wanted to print a document from OpenOffice. I had never configured the printer settings within X11, and have never even touched
This contrasts very favorably to the time 8 months ago when I configured my Dell laptop with RedHat 7.3 to print to the LaserJet at home.
Think about it like this: you have a hole that you want filled up, so you can pave it over and make a parking lot. You could throw money into the hole to fill it up, but at some point you might realize that dirt would be cheaper. Do you keep throwing money into the hole, because you've already spent so much? Or do you cut your losses?
You mean besides marijuana, hops, and avocados (in which the plant is either male or female)? Or any other flowering plant (in which both "male" gametes and "female" zygotes are produced)?
- iCommune shares the files via Apache (OS X comes with Apache installed). So one could, in theory, share these with anyone, not just with people in Rendezvous range.
- iTunes doesn't share at all right now. iCommune lets it do so. How about if I tell the taco vendor at the corner to shut down now because I'm building a taqueria on that corner three months from now? You want a taco now? Too bad...
As others are saying, this is a license issue, and I haven't yet seen anyone posting details as to what part of the license was violated. Do remember, though, that Apple is even more anticompetitive than Microsoft. It's just that Apple's products tend to work fairly well, and they have a miniscule market share, so nobody notices much.I have a FreeBSD machine over at Rackspace, and I found out the hard way what they meant. They only support out-of-the-box distributions. So if you cvsup the source and then rebuild your world and kernel, then if anything goes wrong with the system (say, for instance, a disk fries) they won't perform support operations as part of your built-in service fees (since you're not running on a standard configuration). Instead, you'll have to pay a premium for the support.
Kirk wins on emotional grounds (he was first, he's the standard by which others are measured).
Picard wins on merit, by acting like an actual captain.
Result: two Oscars, one each.
The one, true religion is emacs.
The one, true editor is ed.
You're missing the best part about the California system. Now, it's true that what Proposition 13 did was make it so that the state can't reappraise the property until it is sold or improved (I'm fuzzy on this, but essentially it means that if you build a new room onto the back of your house, they can reappraise, but if you just knock out a wall in between kitchen and dining room, they can't), so this means that long-term property holders get the tax burden shifted away from them and onto new owners.
The brilliant part is that although this was sold to the electorate as protecting granny in her old house, the "people" it really protects are the business landlords. Most companies don't own their buildings, they lease them long term. So when a business relocates, the owner of the space hasn't changed and the property doesn't get reappraised. Does this rock or what?
This means that the business that's giving people two communities over jobs ('cause the people can't afford to live across the street from the office) isn't paying property taxes (via increased rent to the landlord) to the community whose infrastructure (roads, electrical & phone grid, sewers, water, etc.) it's impacting. Or at least, the taxes it is paying are adjusted to property values as of 30 years ago and not current values.
Some places responded to this with payroll taxes, but that's an even thornier issue than property taxes. What should happen is that the people who benefit from the infrastructure should pay to support it. But what is happening is that the people who pay for the infrastructure are mostly people who haven't yet had the opportunity to derive maximal benefit from it, while the long-term benefits are going to people who haven't been paying their fair share.
You're right. They get a break because they're presorting the pieces of mail and bundling together the pieces that go to the same ZIP code, which saves the Post Office a lot of work. On the other hand, they have some restrictions on what kinds of mail can be sent at this discount. It all has to be the same (in a given mailing), if not enough pieces are going to a 5 digit zip, then a higher rate applies (for 3 digit zip, and then if not enough there, they have to pay full rate), and so on.
Not Found /news/OLGBTOPNEWS/2002-11-10T173943Z_01_L10426000_ RTRIDST_0_OUKTP-LIFE-RUSSIA-NEWTON.html was not found on this server.
The requested URL