Even bug-free software needs support. It needs to be rolled out, configured, setup, updated, modified and so on.
Also i'm not sure what you mean by "modify something that should have been capable of doing the job properly in the first place". Requirements change, people want new features, and so on. Software is never complete. Can you think of any software that is complete?
the environmentalists of the world just have to take caution and present a believeable case with as little embellishment as possible
The problem is, as the environmentalists argue, that we don't have time to wait for the undoubtable evidence of global warning, and need to act upon the worst-case scenario.
For my degree project I took freecraft and made it 3D and make it client-server. Looked nice. But I spent most of my time fighting the code. Not because it was particulary bad or anything, but because I had to convert it all over to C++ compatible from C (there are incompatibilities. I hit every one I'm sure), fight the Makefile's (at the time they had their own custom make system), fight event-loops (freecraft and the graphical engine), and so on.
It turned out looking pretty nice, but I got poor marks (relatively - it was 68% when a 1st is 70%. But I was getting 75+% in everything else, so...). I attribute the poor marks partly to be unable to really explain where my time and code was. "Well I spent a week adding this c++ library to the makefile...".
As a side point, I never bothered to release my code. It required so many libraries that it was a nightmare to set up to compile.
I have been looking at doing this for the past few weeks now. (I've been helping with adding rendezvous support to other linux apps). My first step is to get a way to send generic packet information over kopete. I'm still not sure how to do that yet.:)
Ah yes, that does ring bells. But I thought it was still true that the high energy cosmic rays were still higher than what we can produce in the accelerators? And therefore nothing to worry about.
Like I said in a previous post - There's the weak and strong anthropic principal. The weak says you have to show that it's most likely probable for this universe to exist in a way we can live in it and that we can exist at some time and point within it.
The strong basically ignores probabilities and considers the problem solved no matter what the question.
Both have flaws, but the strong version, like you say, is dodgy, and isn't liked by most.
Actually I think it was pointed at that mininature black holes were created all the time. Particles slam into earth at far higher speeds that we can achieve in a supercollider. But small black holes just aren't stable and disappear quickly.
I'm 22 and doing my PhD. I got a 1st in my degree, did kernel hacking, currently spend perhaps 6 hours a day coding for linux, and all the other hours I have left I study as much physics as I can. I'm always trying to chat up women, and be a friendly guy and so on.
I'm feeling so pressurised by everyone telling me not to waste my childhood and to study/play that's its really stressing me and start to affect me badly.
If Joe Sixpack kills someone and is forgiven, why shouldn't anyone else be? While that is an extreme (and criminal) analogy, it is unfair that the law does not treat everyone equally.
Um, circumstance? I'm sure the military can do more things than I can. We aren't treated equally.
And my point is just because it is true, doesn't mean that the president of Harvard needs to say it. The trouble is that it causes an unfair bias, and makes women feel less welcome.
I haven't once said that it's not true. I have said that almost certaintly the reason that there are less females in science is due to more issues than biological (from the way they are raised, to having female role models).
This isn't about some paper that a scientist has published. I don't know why you keep twisting the facts. It's nothing to do with shutting a paper a vault or anything even close to analogous. It's about the president of Harvard being a bit more responsible.
Btw, as to being unfair, this is what 'positive discrimination' is. The reason is to get more women/black/some_other_under_represented_group in power. This makes it easier afterwards to be fair since you then have role models and a more equal (trodden) path.
Without being 'unfair' at the start, it is harder to judge the reasons why there are less women.
Why do you think Harvard went from the tenure being offered to 34% of women when the current president of harvard joined, to just 18% (iirc)? Biological reasons?
> In short, who cares what science says your odds are?
It's not science, it people. Reworded correctly it should be "In short, who cares what people around me, people in power, and what role models say your odds are?". The answer is, well, a lot of people.
Slashdot Mirror
Even bug-free software needs support. It needs to be rolled out, configured, setup, updated, modified and so on.
Also i'm not sure what you mean by "modify something that should have been capable of doing the job properly in the first place". Requirements change, people want new features, and so on. Software is never complete. Can you think of any software that is complete?
the environmentalists of the world just have to take caution and present a believeable case with as little embellishment as possible
The problem is, as the environmentalists argue, that we don't have time to wait for the undoubtable evidence of global warning, and need to act upon the worst-case scenario.
I second the disagreement.
For my degree project I took freecraft and made it 3D and make it client-server. Looked nice.
But I spent most of my time fighting the code. Not because it was particulary bad or anything, but because I had to convert it all over to C++ compatible from C (there are incompatibilities. I hit every one I'm sure), fight the Makefile's (at the time they had their own custom make system), fight event-loops (freecraft and the graphical engine), and so on.
It turned out looking pretty nice, but I got poor marks (relatively - it was 68% when a 1st is 70%. But I was getting 75+% in everything else, so...). I attribute the poor marks partly to be unable to really explain where my time and code was. "Well I spent a week adding this c++ library to the makefile...".
As a side point, I never bothered to release my code. It required so many libraries that it was a nightmare to set up to compile.
Oh, uh yeah, 0% growth is 100% the same size... oh well
bah, it always sucks to do percentage comparisions of a small company against a large company.
A 1 man outfit hiring 2 others is a 300% growth.
Also try the pages that kde use. They are in the kde cvs tree:
http://webcvs.kde.org/khtmltests/
Yeah but that will be the crappy remastered version, where .1415 was considered not random enough and changed to .1482
You should check again then. The current mozilla and bsd licenses are gpl compatible.
The apache license is hard to tell. The apache people think it is compatible, and the fsf think it isn't.
below average intelligence = 50% of the voting population.
... :0
This is why
I have been looking at doing this for the past few weeks now. (I've been helping with adding rendezvous support to other linux apps). :)
My first step is to get a way to send generic packet information over kopete. I'm still not sure how to do that yet.
Ah yes, that does ring bells.
But I thought it was still true that the high energy cosmic rays were still higher than what we can produce in the accelerators? And therefore nothing to worry about.
Like I said in a previous post - There's the weak and strong anthropic principal.
The weak says you have to show that it's most likely probable for this universe to exist in a way we can live in it and that we can exist at some time and point within it.
The strong basically ignores probabilities and considers the problem solved no matter what the question.
Both have flaws, but the strong version, like you say, is dodgy, and isn't liked by most.
light would be travelling away from it and towards you at the speed of light. You'd see it in plenty of time.
Actually I think it was pointed at that mininature black holes were created all the time. Particles slam into earth at far higher speeds that we can achieve in a supercollider.
But small black holes just aren't stable and disappear quickly.
It makes it easier to explain the simple things when you fully understand it deeper than you have to explain it at.
Unless you jack off and kill lots of sperm ;)
That's what I told the judge!
Yes it's fun, and produces a big adrenaline rush. But the thing about adrenaline is that it wears you out.
I don't want to let myself. I'm scared of looking back in 10 years and realise I've done nothing.
I'm 22 and doing my PhD. I got a 1st in my degree, did kernel hacking, currently spend perhaps 6 hours a day coding for linux, and all the other hours I have left I study as much physics as I can.
I'm always trying to chat up women, and be a friendly guy and so on.
I'm feeling so pressurised by everyone telling me not to waste my childhood and to study/play that's its really stressing me and start to affect me badly.
"It also helps against the assholes who sue for millions of dollars because they spilled some hot coffee over their lap: "
Bah, I'm sick of this being brought up.
Go read snopes or search google on it or something. The woman had a good case.
So in this case the spamee doesn't dare go to court at all because in the slim case he loses he's going to have a huge debt.
If Joe Sixpack kills someone and is forgiven, why shouldn't anyone else be? While that is an extreme (and criminal) analogy, it is unfair that the law does not treat everyone equally.
Um, circumstance? I'm sure the military can do more things than I can. We aren't treated equally.
And my point is just because it is true, doesn't mean that the president of Harvard needs to say it. The trouble is that it causes an unfair bias, and makes women feel less welcome.
I haven't once said that it's not true. I have said that almost certaintly the reason that there are less females in science is due to more issues than biological (from the way they are raised, to having female role models).
This isn't about some paper that a scientist has published. I don't know why you keep twisting the facts. It's nothing to do with shutting a paper a vault or anything even close to analogous. It's about the president of Harvard being a bit more responsible.
Btw, as to being unfair, this is what 'positive discrimination' is. The reason is to get more women/black/some_other_under_represented_group in power. This makes it easier afterwards to be fair since you then have role models and a more equal (trodden) path.
Without being 'unfair' at the start, it is harder to judge the reasons why there are less women.
Why do you think Harvard went from the tenure being offered to 34% of women when the current president of harvard joined, to just 18% (iirc)? Biological reasons?
You misunderstand.
> In short, who cares what science says your odds are?
It's not science, it people. Reworded correctly it should be "In short, who cares what people around me, people in power, and what role models say your odds are?". The answer is, well, a lot of people.
You said it better than I did.