"I mean, take a look at how quickly commercial operating systems like BeOS and Windows NT supported journalling file systems. Then take a look at how widespread it is among free operating systems. "
Well, Microsoft has been making OS software since the 80's, and they first got it in the mid 90's. Linux has had working journalling for about 6 months via ReiserFS. It's not official, but I have heard of several large organizations running it succesfully.
"How many clustering solutions are there for linux?" Well, depending on what sort of clustering you want (speed? reliability?), there's Mosix, Linux-HA, Beowulf, TurboCluster, and more.
"With free OSes there is often little in the way of financial backing for more ambitious undertakings. Look at who (sic) extraordinary the recent support of the perl hacker is. I mean, it makes front page news that some guy gets to spend 100% of his time working on improving the product."
There is all sorts of financial backing, from the companies and organizations that use the software, such as IBM, Los Alamos National Labs, and many more. Larry Wall has been paid for many years to work on Perl by O'Reilly - Damian Conway is an unusual case because he was sponsored directly by the community.
"However, the article does mention that many/most linux based companies are suffering from financial difficulties, which in turn will make it harder for people to get the kind of funding they need
to do more ambitious work."
Because Linux companies don't compete in building the software, the loss of a few does not mean the loss of any pieces. Would you say that IBM, RedHat, or any major Linux company is going under? Corel did, but they weren't contributing anything.
"Investment analysts like the Motley Fool recommend that you do not invest in a company unless their margin is at least 10% as otherwise they will not have the ability to fund future expansion, or weather an economic recession. "
Drug companies are barely affected at all by recessions, because almost all drugs aren't a luxury, they're a necessity.
So, you sign up for EQ, and build a character, and that character owns a sword. Now, the player tries to sell the character's sword. There's a confusion of levels here - that can't happen. I asked my GM in Shadowrun what would happen if I tried to sell my character's stuff to another player, and he said that I would be a. disallowed, and b. thrown out of the game.
Likewise, characters cannot be owned. A character ought to have a personality and stuff, and while it's possible to give away a character to another player, it takes a lot of work to get the player used to how the character thinks and stuff. Now, I know that EQ characters are rarely RPed, but in principle, that's the major issue. Again, if I were a GM making rules for my players, I would require character transfers to maintain character.
So, if you look at it all from that perspective, Sony's position makes sense - you don't own your character's stuff, and your character itself is almost impossible to transfer without lossage.
No you didn't. You said, "I would consider this to be equivalent to writing a piece of fiction that depicts these acts. It's a pretty sick puppy that would do this, or want to read it."
My point would be that there are reasons for writing fiction which involves children having sex that are not at all sick. And that the line between "sick" and "not sick" is so fine as to not exist.
He does this client side scripting. Client-side scripting was originally an incompatible thing that Netscape did. If you turn off JavaScript, you can get the original page. This isn't surprising, when you look at the page - it's about client-side scripting. And, frankly, most of its articles are worthless - client side form validation and the like are useless in the enterprise, and just about anywhere else I can think of.
Remember how the OED was created: thousands of people went through existing literature, and found actual word usages.
In this country, the meaning of acronym is changing to contain the set of what you call acronym and initialism. Now, because nobody except the ultra-elite uses initialism, it will maintain its meaning.
Words aren't created by the dictionary, the dictionary merely records them. So, every day the above post becomes more wrong.
"Structured Query Language". A standard way of getting data into and out of DBs.
Example: "select answer from whizbang where
qid = 22 and sid = 1"
whizbang is a table (imagine a spreadsheet that's accessed row-by-row). The query grabs the answer column from the whizbang table, but only in rows where the value in the qid column is 22, and the value in the sid column is 1.
It's making fun of the fact that Micros~1 finally got long file names - something UNIX had had for quite some time and that Mac had had since 1984. Mac, of course, has a file-name-length-limit that's half of the limit of windows and 1/8th the limit of Linux (my kernel, anyway).
<BR><BR>
It's also making fun of the fact that W95 still had DOS underneath.
The 14th ammendment doesn't cover gender. And, the EU has something resembling a consitution (it has a set of metalaws, anyhow), and equal rights for all genders is in those metalaws.
Mostly Illegal: http://www.lib.ru/lat/ (yes, it's in russian. Some of their stuff is in English, tho. Look for authors you know, modulo transliteration (Ray Bradbury -> Rej Bredberi))
Also, Google turns up some great stuff, if you just put in the title of the book and the author: the search "Bullet In The Brain" Tobias Wolff turns up, in the first 20, http://www.wam.umd.edu/~shaner/stories/bullet.html
Re:Will GTK become Yet Another X?
on
GTK+ without X!
·
· Score: 1
Because that's the name of the only chapter from the Unix Hater's Handbook that anyone here has read, because it's the sample they give out for free on the net. And, since JWZ and others wrote it, it must be true.
</cynical>
To be fair, it probably was more true in 1994 than it is now.
>>If you're a woman (I know, only about 5% of Slashdot) there are a lot of countries that are less enlightened about women's rights than the US. <<
The US never passed the Equal Rights Amendment. A law could be passed, tomorrow, that taxed women at twice the rate of men, and it could not be thrown out. The EU has equal rights laws, which they actually apply.
1. No one cares that it's commercial. We care that it's proprietary. Free software is about freedom. If we can't make it better, fix it when it breaks, share it with our friends, and use it in our businesses, then we don't want it.
2. If you say "Open Source", you ought to read the definition at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html. Also, using the GPL does *not* turn over the copyright on your project to the FSF or anyone else. Since I know you're smart enough to read a license and understand it, I can only assume you're lying in a cynical attempt to manipulate the Free Software community.
3. Preventing 3rd party distribution is not how Open Source works. If you're going to be honest, tell us you don't give a shit about Open Source, that you think it's a flawed business model, and that we're all a bunch of commies. But don't lie to us. We hate that.
>>Although that was a long-awaited update (although it disappointed in some respects compared with the original), the differences between 5 and 5.6 do not really warrant buying a new edition. <<
At my local Perl Mongers meeting, I looked at the 3rd Ed Camel for ten minutes (I own the second). I was instantly convinced of its superiority. You may consider Unicode a minor feature, but for people who need to work in other languages than English, it's a major help. Further, Larry Wall is funny enough that a new edition (with new humor) is worth buying even if you never intend to use Perl (it helps to be a geek, tho - look in the 2nd ed. camel under the Glossary for "thread" to see what I mean).
I do own my code that I write on my own time. On my employer's time, watch me ask him "Do you want me to spend twice as much time on it to make it portable?" The point is that there are other goals than portability - there's speed, maintainability, ease of implementation (and that *does* matter when the client says "I want it in a week").
If you want to argue that portable code is a basic human right, then obviously, you believe that Free Software (free as in speech) is a basic human right. Since it's possible to make a code unportable (if you have the source and the time), and since it's one reason Free Software is good (you can make stuff faster by doing it in assembly language) - you've hit a contradiction. The way to resolve it is: portable code is merely good, while Free Software is an absolute right (the other alternative, that portable code is an absolute right, doesn't work, because software must be Free to be portable)...
Also, if you get payed for cleaning up unportable code, why are you complaining? Would you prefer to be unemployed?
Here's the deal: You don't need lots of RAM, 'cause you can stream textures from main memory every frame. How? 3.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. That's why the PS2 can look so good with so little VRAM.
In turn, Yahoo! should, as a responsible and respectful member of the global community,
agree to put these blocks in place and allow the French to maintain and administer them.
No. Should they also ban pictures of women with exposed faces because Iran wants them to? Censorship is never acceptable. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
"I mean, take a look at how quickly commercial operating systems like BeOS and Windows NT supported journalling file systems. Then take a look at how widespread it is among free operating systems. "
Well, Microsoft has been making OS software since the 80's, and they first got it in the mid 90's. Linux has had working journalling for about 6 months via ReiserFS. It's not official, but I have heard of several large organizations running it succesfully.
"How many clustering solutions are there for linux?" Well, depending on what sort of clustering you want (speed? reliability?), there's Mosix, Linux-HA, Beowulf, TurboCluster, and more.
"With free OSes there is often little in the way of financial backing for more ambitious undertakings. Look at who (sic) extraordinary the recent support of the perl hacker is. I mean, it makes front page news that some guy gets to spend 100% of his time working on improving the product."
There is all sorts of financial backing, from the companies and organizations that use the software, such as IBM, Los Alamos National Labs, and many more. Larry Wall has been paid for many years to work on Perl by O'Reilly - Damian Conway is an unusual case because he was sponsored directly by the community.
"However, the article does mention that many/most linux based companies are suffering from financial difficulties, which in turn will make it harder for people to get the kind of funding they need
to do more ambitious work."
Because Linux companies don't compete in building the software, the loss of a few does not mean the loss of any pieces. Would you say that IBM, RedHat, or any major Linux company is going under? Corel did, but they weren't contributing anything.
"Investment analysts like the Motley Fool recommend that you do not invest in a company unless their margin is at least 10% as otherwise they will not have the ability to fund future expansion, or weather an economic recession. "
Drug companies are barely affected at all by recessions, because almost all drugs aren't a luxury, they're a necessity.
So, you sign up for EQ, and build a character, and that character owns a sword. Now, the player tries to sell the character's sword. There's a confusion of levels here - that can't happen. I asked my GM in Shadowrun what would happen if I tried to sell my character's stuff to another player, and he said that I would be a. disallowed, and b. thrown out of the game.
Likewise, characters cannot be owned. A character ought to have a personality and stuff, and while it's possible to give away a character to another player, it takes a lot of work to get the player used to how the character thinks and stuff. Now, I know that EQ characters are rarely RPed, but in principle, that's the major issue. Again, if I were a GM making rules for my players, I would require character transfers to maintain character.
So, if you look at it all from that perspective, Sony's position makes sense - you don't own your character's stuff, and your character itself is almost impossible to transfer without lossage.
"I say wait it out and pick up some Starwars toys at the closing sale." They might get Starwars toys, but the name will go to the highest bidder.
Do you mean: This& lt;/a>?
<BR><BR>
This was originally created for the Bernstein case mentioned in the Amicus brief.
Non-orthogonal is fine, as long as it is complete. Unless you were just being a troll?
No you didn't. You said, "I would consider this to be equivalent to writing a piece of fiction that depicts these acts. It's a pretty sick puppy that would do this, or want to read it."
My point would be that there are reasons for writing fiction which involves children having sex that are not at all sick. And that the line between "sick" and "not sick" is so fine as to not exist.
A sick puppy like Gunter Grass?
Or did you mean like Vladimir Nabokov?
Mystere?
Nicola Griffith?
Diane Duane?
Who?
It's bad because it's math. Patenting math is bullshit because math is an inherent property of the universe - it's discovered, not invented.
He does this client side scripting. Client-side scripting was originally an incompatible thing that Netscape did. If you turn off JavaScript, you can get the original page. This isn't surprising, when you look at the page - it's about client-side scripting. And, frankly, most of its articles are worthless - client side form validation and the like are useless in the enterprise, and just about anywhere else I can think of.
>>Check your OED<<
Remember how the OED was created: thousands of people went through existing literature, and found actual word usages.
In this country, the meaning of acronym is changing to contain the set of what you call acronym and initialism. Now, because nobody except the ultra-elite uses initialism, it will maintain its meaning.
Words aren't created by the dictionary, the dictionary merely records them. So, every day the above post becomes more wrong.
"Structured Query Language". A standard way of getting data into and out of DBs.
Example: "select answer from whizbang where
qid = 22 and sid = 1"
whizbang is a table (imagine a spreadsheet that's accessed row-by-row). The query grabs the answer column from the whizbang table, but only in rows where the value in the qid column is 22, and the value in the sid column is 1.
Read the 14th amendemnt again.
It's making fun of the fact that Micros~1 finally got long file names - something UNIX had had for quite some time and that Mac had had since 1984. Mac, of course, has a file-name-length-limit that's half of the limit of windows and 1/8th the limit of Linux (my kernel, anyway).
<BR><BR>
It's also making fun of the fact that W95 still had DOS underneath.
The 14th ammendment doesn't cover gender. And, the EU has something resembling a consitution (it has a set of metalaws, anyhow), and equal rights for all genders is in those metalaws.
Legal: http://www.freesfonline.de/
l
Mostly Illegal: http://www.lib.ru/lat/ (yes, it's in russian. Some of their stuff is in English, tho. Look for authors you know, modulo transliteration (Ray Bradbury -> Rej Bredberi))
Also, Google turns up some great stuff, if you just put in the title of the book and the author: the search "Bullet In The Brain" Tobias Wolff turns up, in the first 20, http://www.wam.umd.edu/~shaner/stories/bullet.htm
Because that's the name of the only chapter from the Unix Hater's Handbook that anyone here has read, because it's the sample they give out for free on the net. And, since JWZ and others wrote it, it must be true.
</cynical>
To be fair, it probably was more true in 1994 than it is now.
>>If you're a woman (I know, only about 5% of Slashdot) there are a lot of countries that are less enlightened about women's rights than the US. <<
The US never passed the Equal Rights Amendment. A law could be passed, tomorrow, that taxed women at twice the rate of men, and it could not be thrown out. The EU has equal rights laws, which they actually apply.
1. No one cares that it's commercial. We care that it's proprietary. Free software is about freedom. If we can't make it better, fix it when it breaks, share it with our friends, and use it in our businesses, then we don't want it.
2. If you say "Open Source", you ought to read the definition at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html. Also, using the GPL does *not* turn over the copyright on your project to the FSF or anyone else. Since I know you're smart enough to read a license and understand it, I can only assume you're lying in a cynical attempt to manipulate the Free Software community.
3. Preventing 3rd party distribution is not how Open Source works. If you're going to be honest, tell us you don't give a shit about Open Source, that you think it's a flawed business model, and that we're all a bunch of commies. But don't lie to us. We hate that.
>>Although that was a long-awaited update (although it disappointed in some respects compared with the original), the differences between 5 and 5.6 do not really warrant buying a new edition. <<
At my local Perl Mongers meeting, I looked at the 3rd Ed Camel for ten minutes (I own the second). I was instantly convinced of its superiority. You may consider Unicode a minor feature, but for people who need to work in other languages than English, it's a major help. Further, Larry Wall is funny enough that a new edition (with new humor) is worth buying even if you never intend to use Perl (it helps to be a geek, tho - look in the 2nd ed. camel under the Glossary for "thread" to see what I mean).
I do own my code that I write on my own time. On my employer's time, watch me ask him "Do you want me to spend twice as much time on it to make it portable?" The point is that there are other goals than portability - there's speed, maintainability, ease of implementation (and that *does* matter when the client says "I want it in a week").
If you want to argue that portable code is a basic human right, then obviously, you believe that Free Software (free as in speech) is a basic human right. Since it's possible to make a code unportable (if you have the source and the time), and since it's one reason Free Software is good (you can make stuff faster by doing it in assembly language) - you've hit a contradiction. The way to resolve it is: portable code is merely good, while Free Software is an absolute right (the other alternative, that portable code is an absolute right, doesn't work, because software must be Free to be portable)...
Also, if you get payed for cleaning up unportable code, why are you complaining? Would you prefer to be unemployed?
I hate Sony, but I hate FUD more.
Here's the deal: You don't need lots of RAM, 'cause you can stream textures from main memory every frame. How? 3.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. That's why the PS2 can look so good with so little VRAM.
Some kind soul has OCR'd the Big U and put it up for download:
http://server3003.freeyellow.com/neilbury/
In turn, Yahoo! should, as a responsible and respectful member of the global community, agree to put these blocks in place and allow the French to maintain and administer them.
No. Should they also ban pictures of women with exposed faces because Iran wants them to? Censorship is never acceptable. Period.