When will this bullshit anti-Register stuff quit? The Reg came out with this story ages ago (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18002.html) , even with the "All Your..." lead. This is nothing but a re-hash.
It happens so frequently. Interesting story on Slashdot, frighteningly similar to recent Reg story, sans any quote of the Reg or link to their story. In fact, Slashdot seems to _never_ post Reg links any more, and seems to enjoy taking shots at them (witness them being described as 'scare mongerers' during the CPRM debacle).
S'not cos El Reg gets better stories and funnier content is it? And while we're on the subject, what's up with not linking to BeSpot?? Huh???
Surely, if the Debian Maintainer 'maintains' the package, at the end of the day it's up to them? Okay, that's not completely true, but it does seem like someone is kicking up a stink to get their own way. Stuff like this should be decided in private, or at least among developers, not as a public debating match. Imagine if every decision in Debian was taken through 'slashdot justice'.
I don't like the idea of people making noise trying to bring unnatural pressure to bear on those maintainers of the package....
But you know.. they have a high-profile open source advocate amongst their staff (Bruce Perens).
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that he could stop badgering the printer engineers for five minutes, and go and badger the bosses of the software developers??
So you're going to sit back, relax, watch all the other (more expensive options) hit the windshield? How cheap do you think WMP is going to be *then*, when it's the only game in town?
Microsoft WMP itself is not supported under Linux.
Okay, say we switch to WMP, because people can currently see them. What happens when Microsoft make the Windows DLLs rely on DirectX, or something else we don't have? What about people using Linux on other platforms? Not everyone is x86. Think, man, for god's sake...
Of course Mathworld is still with us! Of course it is!
What is the answer? Forget freenet, gnutella, and whatever else you're thinking of. The pages are still out there. What we need is a great big URL filter, where dead pages can be resurrected, Lazarus-like, with this simple function:
Thus, when we ask "Where is the mathworld page on polynomials?" we get the response http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:http://mathwo rld.wolfram.com/PolynomialEquation.html
Now all we need to do is convert that to cgi, and run everything through this simple filter. Presto, live site;))
Heh, I'm not sure you've ever designed an anti-RFI mains filter;) It's a little more complicated than a cap - varistor, suitably small caps (0.22 microfarads, ish). You also need to consider where the caps are placed. You can actually buy these in IEC packages, for easy drop-in replacement.
As for the UPS, I was talking more about how they expect the signal to get through it.. and it also depends whether you have an active or passive UPS. Most good ones completely separate the mains going into the UPS from the mains going out - they're completely isolated. Hence, no data:)
Actually, it's not as bad as you'd think. One similar system in the UK was the Rediffusion system (circa 1960), which placed analogue video on a (essentially) mains carrier. Still some places that have it in. TV would be plugged in, and got power and everything from the one plug (the 'video signal' was 110VAC peak-to-peak;). Audio was in there too. Picture quality was fine.
However, Rediffusion installations generally used a dedicated network. So it might be that all networked things need to be on their own circuit, etc. Not beyond the realms of possibility, but if you start talking dedicated networks you may as well be installing CAT-7...
Noise isn't a function of the frequency or modulation. It's a function of how many cheap electrical devices you have plugged into your system. This is why we have filters. Why your amplifier goes pop when you turn on the hoover. Etc.
And no, a sufficiently large cap wouldn't remove the signal. A sufficiently large cap would blow up the sub-station - mains is AC, caps hold DC charge. The supply and cap would be fighting each other, hence a recreation of the big bang. (Actually, it's far more likely the cap would go, and yes, they do explode). I think you're thinking of DC power supplies there. But anyway, you can filter the mains, for about 20 UK quid (30 dollars) at most. And I can tell you the frequency easily: 50/60Hz band-pass. Pretty obvious, huh? Quite how this system works in conjunction with UPS's, though, is the interesting question...
Software related questions? Why? Slashdot isn't a software site. Stallman doesn't write software (anymore). That kind of makes it pointless.
I don't think Stallman is duping anyone. If you find that you don't agree with his views after hearing them, fine, but that doesn't mean everyone else should follow you lemming-like as if you were the third coming. A good rule of thumb is to assume others are as intelligent as you ('Did you see that advert? So many people are buying that product because of that advert, they're all sheep. Of course, advertising doesn't affect *me*'.., etc.) - to assume otherwise is to disrespect someone else and their views, and not only is it a lack of respect, it's usually an underestimation also....
Hmm, little vague: what I meant to say, was, he's saying the relationship ( ((n+1)%3==0)&&((n+1)%2==0)) || ((n-1)%3==0)&&((n-1)%2==0)) ) holds... I don't if this gives you any extra info though.
I would imagine those counter-examples work because P or Q=2 or 3 stops it. By frequency analysis, given the product of two primes is odd, the number 'above' or 'below' must be divisible by two (i.e., even). Since you are considering products of primes other than 2 or 3, pq must therefore not be factorable by three. Since numbers that are factorable by three occur every 3 numbers (obvious), and n%3!==0, therefore ((n-1)%3==0)||((n+1)%3==0)). I think?!
(Young, eager MD) "Noooo!!! I've just got to save it..." (Experienced MD) "Give it up. It's gone. You'll have to learn to live with stuff like this" (Young MD) "Such a tragic waste.. just think of what it could have been.. why? why?.. oh god.. it's always the good ones that go.." etc. etc. etc. Anyone got any figures on how much junk they loose up there then?!;) Just kidding, it's always a shame when science doesn't work, but then, you know what they say: if it's chemistry, it smells, if it's biology, it oozes, if it's physics, it doesn't work. C'est la vie;)
I think breaking up control is the point of the thing - that why they make different companies out of it. Billy G could go out and divide MS up into three sections tomorrow - but if he still controlled all three sections, I don't think it would satisfy the USG.
I would imagine that stock would have to be spread, i.e. that one person wouldn't be able to control all three companies.
I have to say, I think it would be a good thing, both for use in the OSS world, but also for Microsoft - I think MS would love to have the handcuffs taken off and allowed to compete freely (i.e. Office for Linux, etc.)...
Yep, that's what I was on about. This link was particularly good: http://www.life.uiuc.edu/jeff/at_ description.html - it's a short description of Alexander Technique. All about posture & stuff, basically..
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, wrong. RMS ain't gonna be explaining Jack about Open Source. He's interested in the Freedom of software - not this open source halfway house :>
When will this bullshit anti-Register stuff quit? The Reg came out with this story ages ago (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18002.html) , even with the "All Your..." lead. This is nothing but a re-hash.
It happens so frequently. Interesting story on Slashdot, frighteningly similar to recent Reg story, sans any quote of the Reg or link to their story. In fact, Slashdot seems to _never_ post Reg links any more, and seems to enjoy taking shots at them (witness them being described as 'scare mongerers' during the CPRM debacle).
S'not cos El Reg gets better stories and funnier content is it? And while we're on the subject, what's up with not linking to BeSpot?? Huh???
Surely, if the Debian Maintainer 'maintains' the package, at the end of the day it's up to them? Okay, that's not completely true, but it does seem like someone is kicking up a stink to get their own way. Stuff like this should be decided in private, or at least among developers, not as a public debating match. Imagine if every decision in Debian was taken through 'slashdot justice'.
I don't like the idea of people making noise trying to bring unnatural pressure to bear on those maintainers of the package....
But you know.. they have a high-profile open source advocate amongst their staff (Bruce Perens).
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that he could stop badgering the printer engineers for five minutes, and go and badger the bosses of the software developers??
Who knows...
> Because "the UK channel adds value to the sun
> product line".
Sure it does, for some values of 'value' equal to 'profit'....
So you're going to sit back, relax, watch all the other (more expensive options) hit the windshield? How cheap do you think WMP is going to be *then*, when it's the only game in town?
Jam today, etc....
Microsoft WMP is not supported under Linux.
You can use Windows DLLs under Linux x86.
Microsoft WMP itself is not supported under Linux.
Okay, say we switch to WMP, because people can currently see them. What happens when Microsoft make the Windows DLLs rely on DirectX, or something else we don't have? What about people using Linux on other platforms? Not everyone is x86. Think, man, for god's sake...
>> what are all those 'Unable to connect to ad server' messages sprinkled around the text
>Have the same without junkbuster. I think they fucked something at Dr Daube.
Debian Hurd. It's still coming.
Of course Mathworld is still with us! Of course it is!
o rld.wolfram.com/PolynomialEquation.html
;))
What is the answer? Forget freenet, gnutella, and whatever else you're thinking of. The pages are still out there. What we need is a great big URL filter, where dead pages can be resurrected, Lazarus-like, with this simple function:
void alive_url(char *dead_url, char *alive)
{
strcpy(alive, "http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:");
strcat(alive, dead_url);
}
Thus, when we ask "Where is the mathworld page on polynomials?" we get the response http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:http://mathw
Now all we need to do is convert that to cgi, and run everything through this simple filter. Presto, live site
Lord Google will look after us all.
Mmmm, we'd have to be careful - it could be that Linus didn't actually hear what the penguin said. His herring could be going...
www.linkguard.com. Seems to look fairly simple actually, they just have massive hdds. Gits.
Not in the UK it isn't - in Britain you need a license from the government to watch TV.
No, this isn't a joke.
I don't see the bubble sort anywhere? :-)
Heh, I'm not sure you've ever designed an anti-RFI mains filter ;) It's a little more complicated than a cap - varistor, suitably small caps (0.22 microfarads, ish). You also need to consider where the caps are placed. You can actually buy these in IEC packages, for easy drop-in replacement.
:)
As for the UPS, I was talking more about how they expect the signal to get through it.. and it also depends whether you have an active or passive UPS. Most good ones completely separate the mains going into the UPS from the mains going out - they're completely isolated. Hence, no data
Actually, it's not as bad as you'd think. One similar system in the UK was the Rediffusion system (circa 1960), which placed analogue video on a (essentially) mains carrier. Still some places that have it in. TV would be plugged in, and got power and everything from the one plug (the 'video signal' was 110VAC peak-to-peak ;). Audio was in there too. Picture quality was fine.
However, Rediffusion installations generally used a dedicated network. So it might be that all networked things need to be on their own circuit, etc. Not beyond the realms of possibility, but if you start talking dedicated networks you may as well be installing CAT-7...
Noise isn't a function of the frequency or modulation. It's a function of how many cheap electrical devices you have plugged into your system. This is why we have filters. Why your amplifier goes pop when you turn on the hoover. Etc.
And no, a sufficiently large cap wouldn't remove the signal. A sufficiently large cap would blow up the sub-station - mains is AC, caps hold DC charge. The supply and cap would be fighting each other, hence a recreation of the big bang. (Actually, it's far more likely the cap would go, and yes, they do explode). I think you're thinking of DC power supplies there. But anyway, you can filter the mains, for about 20 UK quid (30 dollars) at most. And I can tell you the frequency easily: 50/60Hz band-pass. Pretty obvious, huh? Quite how this system works in conjunction with UPS's, though, is the interesting question...
Software related questions? Why? Slashdot isn't a software site. Stallman doesn't write software (anymore). That kind of makes it pointless.
I don't think Stallman is duping anyone. If you find that you don't agree with his views after hearing them, fine, but that doesn't mean everyone else should follow you lemming-like as if you were the third coming. A good rule of thumb is to assume others are as intelligent as you ('Did you see that advert? So many people are buying that product because of that advert, they're all sheep. Of course, advertising doesn't affect *me*'.., etc.) - to assume otherwise is to disrespect someone else and their views, and not only is it a lack of respect, it's usually an underestimation also....
Let's agree on a common name then: Hemos can be Sir Bates, and Hemos. can be Master Bates. Sounds about right ;)
Hmm, little vague: what I meant to say, was, he's saying the relationship ( ((n+1)%3==0)&&((n+1)%2==0)) || ((n-1)%3==0)&&((n-1)%2==0)) ) holds... I don't if this gives you any extra info though.
I would imagine those counter-examples work because P or Q=2 or 3 stops it. By frequency analysis, given the product of two primes is odd, the number 'above' or 'below' must be divisible by two (i.e., even). Since you are considering products of primes other than 2 or 3, pq must therefore not be factorable by three. Since numbers that are factorable by three occur every 3 numbers (obvious), and n%3!==0, therefore ((n-1)%3==0)||((n+1)%3==0)). I think?!
Your forgetting - the HW don't matter, it's decoupled ;))
(Young, eager MD) .. oh god.. it's always the good ones that go .." ;) Just kidding, it's always a shame when science doesn't work, but then, you know what they say: if it's chemistry, it smells, if it's biology, it oozes, if it's physics, it doesn't work. C'est la vie ;)
"Noooo!!! I've just got to save it..."
(Experienced MD)
"Give it up. It's gone. You'll have to learn to live with stuff like this"
(Young MD)
"Such a tragic waste.. just think of what it could have been.. why? why?
etc. etc. etc.
Anyone got any figures on how much junk they loose up there then?!
I think breaking up control is the point of the thing - that why they make different companies out of it. Billy G could go out and divide MS up into three sections tomorrow - but if he still controlled all three sections, I don't think it would satisfy the USG.
I would imagine that stock would have to be spread, i.e. that one person wouldn't be able to control all three companies.
I have to say, I think it would be a good thing, both for use in the OSS world, but also for Microsoft - I think MS would love to have the handcuffs taken off and allowed to compete freely (i.e. Office for Linux, etc.)...
Yep, that's what I was on about. This link was particularly good: http://www.life.uiuc.edu/jeff/at_ description.html - it's a short description of Alexander Technique. All about posture & stuff, basically..