Ummm, I have a MySpace page and Pokemon Diamond was one of the most enjoyable games I've played. Sorry if my non-Slashdot hobbies aren't as purely geeky as you might have hoped.
Now excuse me while I take my son out skateboarding, then later tonight to a tractor pull.
It's not too-well publicized, but the Russian Business Network (AKA spammer filth) have been using (renting?) a large chunk of their botnet space to attack Georgia.
Maybe you have that backwards. Suppose that the botnet is actually a military project, and that high-ranking government figures have been renting it to spammers. Further suppose that they're reallocating resources to the war effort at the moment.
Honestly, that sounds a whole lot more plausible than the idea of spammers voluntarily helping their countrymen.
There are some people who feel that the suffering and hardship caused to these defendants is strictly irrelevant, and that it is irrelevant whether their ability to defend themselves is impaired by disability or poverty.
Ray, if I may speak for the people you're referring to:
I think the consensus is that if she's innocent, then her status doesn't matter: she's innocent! Whether she's a disabled single mom or Warren Buffett, the RIAA's actions were deplorable and (apparently) illegal.
If she's guilty, then her status doesn't matter: she's guilty. Her impoverished status wouldn't give her the right to break the law; it's not as though she's stealing bread to feed her family.
Now, I totally understand and agree with what you're saying. I'm just trying to present the other view as having a bit more heart than I'm afraid you've seen. It's not that we're unsympathetic or don't believe she was criminally mistreated, but that her liability should be weighed by her guilt or innocence and not by her financial means.
Working, with sound and video, on a late-model iMac G5? That would be nice. Might save me a few grand.
They stopped making G5 iMacs in 2006. In four years, that six-year-old iMac will be a boat anchor when compared to a contemporary costing a few grand. I'm certain I could build the equivalent of a 2002 iMac for under $200 today.
Re:Not the only choice
on
Bash Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
Enable command argument completion and try that again. My "retarded" setup apparently has a whole lot more functionality than your bare-bones environment.
Re:Not the only choice
on
Bash Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
So someone wrote a bash script that is somehow interfaced in a variable that shows up in set? And in zsh it's at a lower level?
In theory, it shouldn't make a difference. In practice, it makes tab completion a lot slower because it's running individual Bash functions instead of calling some C code, and it also means that I have about 7,000 more chances to accidentally clobber a helper function (or for a helper function to accidentally clobber something I've written).
Re:Not the only choice
on
Bash Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
7221? How did you get that?
$ sudo aptitude install bash-completion
This enables Zsh-like argument completion, but in a big, slow, and ugly way.
I don't have to. A federal appellate court says that my interpretation is right and your's is wrong. At this moment in time, my take on it is legally verified for a very large chunk of the American population.
Don't be a sheep, and don't misrepresent what I said. I own that copy, in precisely the same way I own a book. That doesn't mean I can distribute it or manufacture copies, but it does mean I can do anything else that you can legally do with your own property.
Note that its officially sanctioned cousin, the AGPL, is a EULA in that it specifically restricts end users from making certain modifications (namely removing any built in redistribution mechanism).
I can't make a license that says, "you can copy this software provided you don't pick your nose" and then sue you for copyright infringement for picking your nose.
You absolutely can. Absent a license, I have no right to distribute your work. If you grant me a license to copy if I agree to certain conditions, and I fail to meet those conditions, then the license is void. At that point, the baseline default of "no copies allowed" as set forth in copyright law is in force.
The court was absolutely correct. When Kamind failed to meet the conditions of their license, it was revoked. From that moment on, they were distributing JMRI illegally.
Re:Small Warning for Ubuntu users:
on
Bash Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
You know I'm not trying to troll here, but I really felt this change was poorly implemented and announced.
Had the system scripts not had out-of-spec Bash extensions, no one would ever have noticed the change. Those are supposed to be sh scripts, which dash handles just fine.
Re:Not the only choice
on
Bash Cookbook
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You don't have tab-completion enabled. I don't mean as in complete-the-filename but as in complete-the-command-arguments. For example, in Bash and Zsh with completion enabled, you can enter ifconfig <tab> and it will complete the interface name, or ssh -o<tab> to get a list of options that can be set (and then go on to tab-complete their possible values).
I will never again voluntarily use a shell that doesn't support this.
Re:Not the only choice
on
Bash Cookbook
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Coloring the prompt? That was the "gee whiz!" moment that made me switch permanently. From my.zshrc:
# Import color definitions autoload colors zsh/terminfo colors
# Define common and useful things to put in a prompt typeset -A prc prc[abbrevpath]='%{${fg[red]}%}%B%45<...<%~%<<%b%{${fg[default]}%}' prc[newline]=$'\n' prc[promptchar]='%(!.#.$)' prc[smiley]='%(?.%{${fg[green]}%}:).%{${fg[red]}%}:()%{${fg[default]}%}' prc[timestamp]='%B%{${fg[blue]}%}[%T]%{${fg[default]}%}%b' prc[userspec]='%B%(!.%{${fg[red]}%}.%{${fg[green]}%})%n@%m%{${fg[default]}%}%b'
# Make a spiffy prompt PROMPT="${prc[userspec]} ${prc[timestamp]} ${prc[abbrevpath]}${prc[newline]}${prc[smiley]} ${prc[promptchar]} "
# Unclutter the namespace unset prc
See how all the colors are defined in an associative array, like ${fg[green]} gets you a green foreground? Say I'm in the directory "/usr/share/media/music/albums/Pink Floyd - A Momentary Lapse of Reason". As a regular user, my prompt looks like:
kirk@athena [16:40]...s/Pink Floyd - A Momentary Lapse of Reason :) $
My name@host is green, the time is blue, and the path is red. The smiley face is green. Now, if I'm root:
$ sudo -s root@athena [16:43]...s/Pink Floyd - A Momentary Lapse of Reason :) #
My name@host is red now, and the prompt char is "#" instead of "$". But what if I run a command and it fails?
# crqecrqw zsh: command not found: crqecrqw root@athena [16:44]...s/Pink Floyd - A Momentary Lapse of Reason :( #
The green smiley face is now a red frowney face. Someone suggested a "big" prompt like that, and once I got used to it, I love it. It's very easy to see where command output stops and the next command starts, and the whole green smile vs. red frown thing is an instant visual indicator of a command's results (which sometimes isn't obvious, say if you're redirecting stderr to/dev/null). Sure, I could have done something similar in Bash, but I guarantee it would've been a whole lot less readable. I did that as an experiment to learn Zsh scripting, and I haven't deliberately used Bash since then.
Not the only choice
on
Bash Cookbook
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I loved Bash (and was the maintained of the FreeBSD port of the Bash tab-completion for a while), but gave it up forever about a week after I tried Zsh. For me, it's like "Bash done right", from associative arrays for easy scripting to tab-completion that's fast and doesn't pollute the namespace with thousands of tiny functions:
$ zsh $ set | wc -l 167 $ bash $ set | wc -l 7221
Which leads me to ask: has anyone tried Zsh but then gone back to Bash? If so, why?
Oh, I'm not arguing. It's ripe for abuse by the kinds of petty little bureaucrats discussed here, especially since zoning laws can change at any time. At least you know what you're getting into with a homeowner's association (not that I'd be part of one regardless).
The fact that he had a fire in his AC tells me that all the fumes from his operation were starting to condense in there and then got activated by a spark in the fan motor.
Funny how your studies taint your opinions. I took a bunch of electrical engineering classes in college, and the fact that he had a fire in his AC tells me that his AC got too hot.
Honestly, what crack do you have to smoke to want to outlaw perfectly respectable hobbies? Maybe next time it'll be some Slashdotter with 20 computers, and the nanny crying that "no one needs that many! It's against zoning!" Into math and reading a bunch of textbooks? "He's weird! It's against zoning!" A friend of mine builds trucks and restores classic cars. "No one needs more than one vehicle! It's against zoning!"
I can understand a certain minimum set of standards, like having to mow your lawn and not painting the house plaid, but there's no rational justification against doing whatever you want to do within the privacy of your own home.
Having administered ESX, I can say the license management is useful for one thing: it helps you ensure you aren't exceeding what you're licensed for. For example, if you aren't licensed for multi-processor boxes, it will complain until you get a valid license.
The fact that people think crap like that is normal, and even helpful, is why I'm a Free Software pragmatist.
This is something I don't understand, why are so many PC gamers in this thread talking about CD's... in 2008!
Because they're trying to appeal to the large demographic of people who have $400 SLI video cards but haven't heard of DVD-ROMs.
And why not leave the disc in, then you can run the game directly from disc and save space.
Because it holds less data than and USB keychain drive I can find, and because my computer only has slots for a finite (and small) number of CD drives.
It's perfectly ok to do whatever you want to the software on your own computer, as long as it doesn't negatively impact other people. Once it does, there should be consequences.
If Blizzard was doing their job and enforcing rules server-side, then it wouldn't matter what players were doing. As I mentioned, my web applications make no assumptions about the integrity of your web browser or the nobility of your intent when making requests. When I try and succeed, I get to keep my job another day. When Blizzard tries and fails, they bust out the lawyers.
For as much fun as we all used to make of Second Life, they took the exact opposite path. Instead of installing more locks and loading up the lawyercannons, they open sourced the client. Every third person there seems to be a griefer, but they used it as a learning experience to figure out how to better secure the server. Again, you're giving Blizzard a free pass for reasons unbeknownst me. For as long as there ever have been and ever will be multiplayer, there have been and will be people hacking their clients. The correct response is to accept that and work stop it on your end.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, I have a MySpace page and Pokemon Diamond was one of the most enjoyable games I've played. Sorry if my non-Slashdot hobbies aren't as purely geeky as you might have hoped.
Now excuse me while I take my son out skateboarding, then later tonight to a tractor pull.
It's not too-well publicized, but the Russian Business Network (AKA spammer filth) have been using (renting?) a large chunk of their botnet space to attack Georgia.
Maybe you have that backwards. Suppose that the botnet is actually a military project, and that high-ranking government figures have been renting it to spammers. Further suppose that they're reallocating resources to the war effort at the moment.
Honestly, that sounds a whole lot more plausible than the idea of spammers voluntarily helping their countrymen.
There are some people who feel that the suffering and hardship caused to these defendants is strictly irrelevant, and that it is irrelevant whether their ability to defend themselves is impaired by disability or poverty.
Ray, if I may speak for the people you're referring to:
I think the consensus is that if she's innocent, then her status doesn't matter: she's innocent! Whether she's a disabled single mom or Warren Buffett, the RIAA's actions were deplorable and (apparently) illegal.
If she's guilty, then her status doesn't matter: she's guilty. Her impoverished status wouldn't give her the right to break the law; it's not as though she's stealing bread to feed her family.
Now, I totally understand and agree with what you're saying. I'm just trying to present the other view as having a bit more heart than I'm afraid you've seen. It's not that we're unsympathetic or don't believe she was criminally mistreated, but that her liability should be weighed by her guilt or innocence and not by her financial means.
Working, with sound and video, on a late-model iMac G5? That would be nice. Might save me a few grand.
They stopped making G5 iMacs in 2006. In four years, that six-year-old iMac will be a boat anchor when compared to a contemporary costing a few grand. I'm certain I could build the equivalent of a 2002 iMac for under $200 today.
Enable command argument completion and try that again. My "retarded" setup apparently has a whole lot more functionality than your bare-bones environment.
So someone wrote a bash script that is somehow interfaced in a variable that shows up in set? And in zsh it's at a lower level?
In theory, it shouldn't make a difference. In practice, it makes tab completion a lot slower because it's running individual Bash functions instead of calling some C code, and it also means that I have about 7,000 more chances to accidentally clobber a helper function (or for a helper function to accidentally clobber something I've written).
7221? How did you get that?
$ sudo aptitude install bash-completion
This enables Zsh-like argument completion, but in a big, slow, and ugly way.
Put up or shut up.
I don't have to. A federal appellate court says that my interpretation is right and your's is wrong. At this moment in time, my take on it is legally verified for a very large chunk of the American population.
Don't be a sheep, and don't misrepresent what I said. I own that copy, in precisely the same way I own a book. That doesn't mean I can distribute it or manufacture copies, but it does mean I can do anything else that you can legally do with your own property.
Exactly: it isn't one!
Note that its officially sanctioned cousin, the AGPL, is a EULA in that it specifically restricts end users from making certain modifications (namely removing any built in redistribution mechanism).
I can't make a license that says, "you can copy this software provided you don't pick your nose" and then sue you for copyright infringement for picking your nose.
You absolutely can. Absent a license, I have no right to distribute your work. If you grant me a license to copy if I agree to certain conditions, and I fail to meet those conditions, then the license is void. At that point, the baseline default of "no copies allowed" as set forth in copyright law is in force.
The court was absolutely correct. When Kamind failed to meet the conditions of their license, it was revoked. From that moment on, they were distributing JMRI illegally.
You know I'm not trying to troll here, but I really felt this change was poorly implemented and announced.
Had the system scripts not had out-of-spec Bash extensions, no one would ever have noticed the change. Those are supposed to be sh scripts, which dash handles just fine.
You don't have tab-completion enabled. I don't mean as in complete-the-filename but as in complete-the-command-arguments. For example, in Bash and Zsh with completion enabled, you can enter ifconfig <tab> and it will complete the interface name, or ssh -o<tab> to get a list of options that can be set (and then go on to tab-complete their possible values).
I will never again voluntarily use a shell that doesn't support this.
Coloring the prompt? That was the "gee whiz!" moment that made me switch permanently. From my .zshrc:
See how all the colors are defined in an associative array, like ${fg[green]} gets you a green foreground? Say I'm in the directory "/usr/share/media/music/albums/Pink Floyd - A Momentary Lapse of Reason". As a regular user, my prompt looks like:
My name@host is green, the time is blue, and the path is red. The smiley face is green. Now, if I'm root:
My name@host is red now, and the prompt char is "#" instead of "$". But what if I run a command and it fails?
The green smiley face is now a red frowney face. Someone suggested a "big" prompt like that, and once I got used to it, I love it. It's very easy to see where command output stops and the next command starts, and the whole green smile vs. red frown thing is an instant visual indicator of a command's results (which sometimes isn't obvious, say if you're redirecting stderr to /dev/null). Sure, I could have done something similar in Bash, but I guarantee it would've been a whole lot less readable. I did that as an experiment to learn Zsh scripting, and I haven't deliberately used Bash since then.
I loved Bash (and was the maintained of the FreeBSD port of the Bash tab-completion for a while), but gave it up forever about a week after I tried Zsh. For me, it's like "Bash done right", from associative arrays for easy scripting to tab-completion that's fast and doesn't pollute the namespace with thousands of tiny functions:
Which leads me to ask: has anyone tried Zsh but then gone back to Bash? If so, why?
Oh, I'm not arguing. It's ripe for abuse by the kinds of petty little bureaucrats discussed here, especially since zoning laws can change at any time. At least you know what you're getting into with a homeowner's association (not that I'd be part of one regardless).
Would you rather they just ask him "hey, is any of this dangerous?" and leave when he says "no"?
Given no reason whatsoever to believe the contrary? Yes!
The fact that he had a fire in his AC tells me that all the fumes from his operation were starting to condense in there and then got activated by a spark in the fan motor.
Funny how your studies taint your opinions. I took a bunch of electrical engineering classes in college, and the fact that he had a fire in his AC tells me that his AC got too hot.
<aol>me too</aol>
Honestly, what crack do you have to smoke to want to outlaw perfectly respectable hobbies? Maybe next time it'll be some Slashdotter with 20 computers, and the nanny crying that "no one needs that many! It's against zoning!" Into math and reading a bunch of textbooks? "He's weird! It's against zoning!" A friend of mine builds trucks and restores classic cars. "No one needs more than one vehicle! It's against zoning!"
I can understand a certain minimum set of standards, like having to mow your lawn and not painting the house plaid, but there's no rational justification against doing whatever you want to do within the privacy of your own home.
Maybe you should move to somewhere where communism rules.
1998 (and Steve Ballmer) want their anti-FOSS rant back.
Having administered ESX, I can say the license management is useful for one thing: it helps you ensure you aren't exceeding what you're licensed for. For example, if you aren't licensed for multi-processor boxes, it will complain until you get a valid license.
The fact that people think crap like that is normal, and even helpful, is why I'm a Free Software pragmatist.
You must not buy much software!
Not a lot, no. Everything I use at work is FOSS, and I mostly buy console games these days (for most of the reasons I listed).
[inaccurate ad-hominem deleted]
You're wrong. There's nothing more to say about that.
This is something I don't understand, why are so many PC gamers in this thread talking about CD's... in 2008!
Because they're trying to appeal to the large demographic of people who have $400 SLI video cards but haven't heard of DVD-ROMs.
And why not leave the disc in, then you can run the game directly from disc and save space.
Because it holds less data than and USB keychain drive I can find, and because my computer only has slots for a finite (and small) number of CD drives.
It's perfectly ok to do whatever you want to the software on your own computer, as long as it doesn't negatively impact other people. Once it does, there should be consequences.
If Blizzard was doing their job and enforcing rules server-side, then it wouldn't matter what players were doing. As I mentioned, my web applications make no assumptions about the integrity of your web browser or the nobility of your intent when making requests. When I try and succeed, I get to keep my job another day. When Blizzard tries and fails, they bust out the lawyers.
For as much fun as we all used to make of Second Life, they took the exact opposite path. Instead of installing more locks and loading up the lawyercannons, they open sourced the client. Every third person there seems to be a griefer, but they used it as a learning experience to figure out how to better secure the server. Again, you're giving Blizzard a free pass for reasons unbeknownst me. For as long as there ever have been and ever will be multiplayer, there have been and will be people hacking their clients. The correct response is to accept that and work stop it on your end.