`groff' belongs to an older generation of document preparation systems, which operate more like compilers than the more recent interactive WYSIWYG(1) (*note What Is groff?-Footnote-1::) systems. `groff' and its contemporary counterpart, TeX, both work using a "batch" paradigm: The input (or "source") files are normal text files with embedded formatting commands. These files can then be processed by `groff' to produce a typeset document on a variety of devices.
Likewise, `groff' should not be confused with a "word processor", since that term connotes an integrated system that includes an editor and a text formatter. Also, many word processors follow the WYSIWYG paradigm discussed earlier.
Although WYSIWYG systems may be easier to use, they have a number of disadvantages compared to `troff':
* They must be used on a graphics display to work on a document.
* Most of the WYSIWYG systems are either non-free or are not very
portable.
* `troff' is firmly entrenched in all UNIX systems.
* It is difficult to have a wide range of capabilities available
within the confines of a GUI/window system.
* It is more difficult to make global changes to a document.
"GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and
impossible to accomplish complex actions." -Doug Gwyn (22/Jun/91
in `comp.unix.wizards')
Yahoo part of my OS? I hope not.
on
Google's Next Steps
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
> Google and Yahoo have become as almost parts of > the operating system, a 'layer' above Linux, > Windows or Mac OS.
Google, yes, but Yahoo? They've got nothing I want.
Which is just as well as I'd rather not do business with people who'd call themselves "Yahoo".
I think you pretty much have to do the work in one of the beneficiary countries. You'll need access to anti-aircraft weapons for testing, after all.
Even then, you are likely to have trouble getting permission to give it to anyone else. You might have to smuggle the software out and distribute it as warez. If caught you are likely to be prosecuted as a "terrorist".
> That's the kind of attitude that reinforces the > vigilante methods that many casinos have used in > the past.
The casinos were often controlled by criminals because anti-gambling laws and sentiment drove honest businessmen away. They used violence to collect gambling debts because they could not sue in most states. The more laws, the more crimes.
Whereas in Las Vegas it is pretty much unheard of. The casinos are owned by entertainment conglomerates, not the mafia. They call the police on cheaters or just throw them out. They understand that the bad pr from mafia-style behavior would cost them far more than the paltry few millions cheaters carry off each year. To the executives of these companies anything less than a billion dollars is not a "large sum of money".
Even if it was cheating, so what? Why should they be arrested? It's the casino's problem to detect cheaters and throw them out (and perhaps sue them for damages). It's a private matter between the casinos and their customers. If the casinos can't handle it, tough shit.
Was anything they did against the stated rules of the game? If not, where's the cheating? If so, where is the crime? Seems to me that the rules of a gambling game amount to a species of civil contract. The casinos certainly have the right to throw cheaters out and should be able to sue them for damages, but I see no reason why cheaters should be prosecuted criminally. It's a private matter between the casino and the alleged cheater.
Microsoft's existence is a consequence of copyright. If it hadn't been them it would have been someone else. Gary Kildall could have been the hated billionaire.
Slashdot Mirror
> Whether or not the Google IPO, if and when it
> finally happens, will make anyone money still
> remains to be seen.
It is absolutely guaranteed to make money for all of the accountants, lawyers, bankers, and brokers involved.
I had a pet wild mouse that made it to seven. He ran about a mile a day in his wheel, and ate mostly peanuts.
What Is `groff'?
================
`groff' belongs to an older generation of document preparation
systems, which operate more like compilers than the more recent
interactive WYSIWYG(1) (*note What Is groff?-Footnote-1::) systems.
`groff' and its contemporary counterpart, TeX, both work using a
"batch" paradigm: The input (or "source") files are normal text files
with embedded formatting commands. These files can then be processed
by `groff' to produce a typeset document on a variety of devices.
Likewise, `groff' should not be confused with a "word processor",
since that term connotes an integrated system that includes an editor
and a text formatter. Also, many word processors follow the WYSIWYG
paradigm discussed earlier.
Although WYSIWYG systems may be easier to use, they have a number of
disadvantages compared to `troff':
* They must be used on a graphics display to work on a document.
* Most of the WYSIWYG systems are either non-free or are not very
portable.
* `troff' is firmly entrenched in all UNIX systems.
* It is difficult to have a wide range of capabilities available
within the confines of a GUI/window system.
* It is more difficult to make global changes to a document.
"GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and
impossible to accomplish complex actions." -Doug Gwyn (22/Jun/91
in `comp.unix.wizards')
> Google and Yahoo have become as almost parts of
> the operating system, a 'layer' above Linux,
> Windows or Mac OS.
Google, yes, but Yahoo? They've got nothing I want.
Which is just as well as I'd rather not do business with people who'd call themselves "Yahoo".
> You have Federal, State, and local regs you need
> to check out.
Don't be silly. We already know that there is no chance of him getting permission were he incautious enough to ask.
Don't ask. Just do it.
You might want to look into the history of radio, with special attention to patents and the Radio Corporation of America.
There were relatively small, single-user computers around before the 360, though they were desk-sized rather than desk-top.
Does this interoperate properly with the evil bit?
> ...something that used to be mainly limited to
> your local police precinct.
Not mine.
> One point that particularly struck me: according
> to Gruber, 'Unix nerds who care about usability
> are switching to Mac OS X in droves'!
> ...horrible things like spam...
What do you mean, "horrible"? Spam is good food!
I think you pretty much have to do the work in one of the beneficiary countries. You'll need access to anti-aircraft weapons for testing, after all.
Even then, you are likely to have trouble getting permission to give it to anyone else. You might have to smuggle the software out and distribute it as warez. If caught you are likely to be prosecuted as a "terrorist".
Some Slashdot posters think FunHi gifts are dumb. Other Slashdot posters sell Everquest stuff. Hint: they are _different_ _people_.
I'm 57 and I never have and never will vote Republican. Or Democratic.
> As a county DBA / Network Technician, I can tell
> you that most government computers are secure...
Including those at the US Dept. of Interior?
> A combination of human error and software that
> didn't anticipate...
Several "human errors", one of them be excessive centralization.
> That's the kind of attitude that reinforces the
> vigilante methods that many casinos have used in
> the past.
The casinos were often controlled by criminals because anti-gambling laws and sentiment drove honest businessmen away. They used violence to collect gambling debts because they could not sue in most states. The more laws, the more crimes.
> Two disagreements come to mind. Firist, they're a
> relatively independent third party, whose interest
> is in protecting both casino and players.
The civil courts can settle disputes between casinos and gamblers.
> They don't just protect casinos from cheaters.
> They also protect players from fraudulent
> casinos.
Fraud is already a crime.
> Second, governments make a lot of tax revenue
> off of gambling (or "gaming" as they like to
> call it).
There is no valid reason to tax casinos any more heavily than any other business.
> I imagine that Vegas casinos more than pay for
> the costs to run the Nevada Gaming Commission.
Such commissions were only created as sops to the religious fanatics. There is no good reason for special regulation of gambling.
Whereas in Las Vegas it is pretty much unheard of. The casinos are owned by entertainment conglomerates, not the mafia. They call the police on cheaters or just throw them out. They understand that the bad pr from mafia-style behavior would cost them far more than the paltry few millions cheaters carry off each year. To the executives of these companies anything less than a billion dollars is not a "large sum of money".
Very old mechanical slots had this "feature", but I believe that it was eliminated from even the mechanical machines long ago.
Even if it was cheating, so what? Why should they be arrested? It's the casino's problem to detect cheaters and throw them out (and perhaps sue them for damages). It's a private matter between the casinos and their customers. If the casinos can't handle it, tough shit.
Was anything they did against the stated rules of the game? If not, where's the cheating? If so, where is the crime? Seems to me that the rules of a gambling game amount to a species of civil contract. The casinos certainly have the right to throw cheaters out and should be able to sue them for damages, but I see no reason why cheaters should be prosecuted criminally. It's a private matter between the casino and the alleged cheater.
Give the croupier a dozen or so balls of varying density and elasticity but identical appearance. Have him select one at random for each game.
I agree. I see no crime here. It's up to the casinos to enforce their rules.
Microsoft's existence is a consequence of copyright. If it hadn't been them it would have been someone else. Gary Kildall could have been the hated billionaire.