There are many, many reasons that a contract could be set aside. For example, if LucasFilm misrepresented their claim to owning a trademark on the word "jedi" when they did not in fact hold such a trademark, then the contract may be considered coercive. I highly doubt that the breach of contract will hold up -- and it almost definitely won't if Lucasfilm doesn't win on trademark infringement -- but lawyers always throw everything they can in the hopes that something will stick.
Much of the tubing is interchangeable, and with nurses connecting and disconnecting dozens each day, mix-ups happen -- sometimes with deadly consequences.
They don't even need to do that really; just color code the tubes, or even just the connectors. Red for IV drips, blue for air/O2, purple for CSF, yellow for urethral catheters, brown for colostomy bags, green for drainage, and a happy rainbow for food.
Hmm, that reminds me of something, but I can't quite... Oh right, the Lucky Charms I had for breakfast.:x
If you pour over a piece of someone else's code, document it, talk about it, sleep with it, whatever, you still will not be as intimately familiar with the code as someone who wrote it.
The fact that I can't remember what I wrote last year, let alone how I wrote it, is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
If all software had to hold up to merchantability rules, it would cost orders of magnitude more than top-of-the-line hardware and flaws would *still* exist. Hospitals, banks, governments, etc. pay a minimum of hundreds of thousands of dollars for this sort of software, usually for very specific hardware that's been explicitly and thoroughly tested, and the payback is marginal at best. In other words, be careful what the fuck you wish for.
512MB, made worse by video memory-sharing in typical laptops, and even low-end desktops.. basically anything with Intel integrated graphics. Consumers often fail to account for the fact that hardware resellers and Microsoft have incongruent goals at best, and competing goals at worst. MS wants to take advantage of contemporary and emerging hardware capabilities, so that it's still relevant & usable in several years, even if it's showing some cracks around the edges. Hardware resellers, OTOH, could care less about the future; they want to leverage the lower price of old and current low-end component stock, shoehorning 2+ year-old (or worse) components and technologies -- inventory that both the reseller itself and the OEMs are desperate to get rid of -- into a "brand new system with the latest OS" for maximum profit. And there's lots of room for profit on low-end systems, especially when the OEM pricing of high-end components permits neither appreciable markup nor volume.
At any rate, "caveat emptor" is alive and well in computer sales, and memory is certainly the largest bottleneck (and, ironically, usually one of the cheapest upgrades) in most home PCs.
Taking over the world? No. But you can't have it both ways. Either Linux's adoption in servers, mobile devices, etc. is meaningless, or its lack of adoption on the desktop is meaningful.
Granted, there is a technical distinction between the desktop environment and the Linux kernel, but that distinction is irrelevant to the average user, and as long as it continues to be used as an excuse, it will prevent growth, both qualitative and quantitative.
Finally, as to producing "quality free software" nearly all of it is command-line oriented; GUIs are either tacked on, or left out entirely. I realize *why* apps follow this pattern of design, necessitated by the distinction between kernel and desktop environment, but modularity all too often comes at the expense of tight and seamless integration from the user's perspective, exacerbated by the lack of standardization in controls and widgets.
As the GP stated, the lack of coherence on the desktop is attributable to the "herding cats" nature of development. Nonetheless, it's still a problem that hasn't been adequately addressed, and lack of uptake is, I believe, evidence that "quality free software" is *not* being produced, at least not when the definition of quality includes transparent integration within in a larger environment.
To be fair, the tools and standards for such integration have come a long way in both Gnome and KDE, but unfortunately there is far less than universal adoption of such standards, even within the environments themselves. Worse, there is necessarily a competition of human interface standards between Gnome, KDE, and even the unnecessary tweaks to each made by a given distro. When standards compete, especially on this sort of scale and timeline, everyone loses.
There are plausible methods to unify on a singular vision and prevent forks from creating a rift, but as with the kernel, it does require a final arbiter of some sort, along with his or her popular support. Unfortunately, people with the skill, vision, and benevolence of Linus Torvalds are hard to find. Pick any two, as they say. Not that Linus is god-like by any means, or that he hasn't made bad decisions in the past, but overall he's clearly done a very good job of managing the official kernel, willingly integrating opposing ideas when, if not before, it becomes clear they're superior to his own. He's neither become overly corrupted by his authority, nor leveraged it unduly for personal gain; something quite unlike the Ellisons or Shuttleworths of the world. Naturally people disagree with some, or perhaps many, of Linus' decisions, but it's hard to argue with success. Which brings us full circle to the lack of success of "Linux" (for lack of a more over-arching term) on the desktop.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Yes, yes, and MS-DOS was never written for a 4-bit processor. There's a reason we call them jokes instead of, say, encyclopedias.
Atari? Try Infocom, or any of the other less established companies that produced text adventures into the early 90s.
Which isn't to say that I take exception with this practice; on the contrary, it's an example of why box art needn't accurately represent the contents. The art was simply something to admire, like the dust sleeve of a sci-fi novel. In some cases it added to the overall effect of the game; in others it added to the mystery. And back in the age of a prepubescent internet, genres were less rigid and reviews of a given title could be much harder to come by, so each new game purchase was almost always a mystery.
Of course, there was also *zero* expectation that a game would resemble the cover art back then. Everyone knew this and for the most part nobody cared. These days, a CG scene on a box (or TV commercial) could reasonably be construed to represent the game content, and a variance between the two could therefore be seen as misleading, or worse.
Still, I've always been told that you can't judge a book by its cover, and packaged software, while typically (though not always) sold on a medium other than book/paper, was no exception. That's was as true back then as it is today.
Wow. If "taking multiple dicks up the butt" is not serious, then what the hell is?
Boss: "Hey guys, the workload's gonna be a little higher this week. Don't worry, it's nothing serious; I just need you to take multiple dicks up the butt while you complete your projects."
I dunno, how do highschools deal with the same set of people when Phys. Ed. is required? I imagine they provide alternative coursework or give them a pass. Either way it's a non-issue IMO.
Sorting may be boring to implement repeatedly (tedium by definition), but I found learning the various standard sorting algorithms to be pretty interesting, and a great practical introduction to pointers.
Programming is first and foremost about problem solving, regardless of whether you're creating a game or a spreadsheet, and sorting is a common problem. If you find learning (and discovering) how to solve problems effectively and efficiently to be boring, then you're probably pursuing the wrong line of work.
"3G" has always been meaningless
on
The Many Faces of 3G
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They didn't "make 3G into a brand"; it has always BEEN a marketing label. There is no such thing as a "3G" wireless signal, rather there are various (existing and emerging) modulation techniques which collectively exist under the 3G label. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G#Overview
Moreover, the signal is the phy layer. The fact that you have a 3G signal doesn't guarantee any minimum performance, any more than having a gigabit NIC guarantees a fast internet connection. It only defines the upper boundary of performance.
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a Coke.
Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to Six Flags.
Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. Keep your kids safe online with Net Nanny.
Mother died today. Should've had a V8.
He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish, but he didn't blame BP.
You don't get it, man. Like, government "leaks" are just distractions to shift attention away from their true goals. But the true genius is how they make everybody believe they're incompetent! Don't you see?!? If everybody thinks the government is incompetent, then nobody's going to believe they're capable of pulling off such a HUGE conspiracy, and anyone who tries to tell the truth, like me, is labeled as a raving lunatic!
8. In keeping the source code a secret, aren't you just relying on "security through obscurity"? Won't authorities eventually discover how your software works anyway?
This charge is difficult to rebut, because under normal conditions, "security through obscurity" is indeed false security. However, Haystack has several properties that make it a special case.
First of all, we do not rely on "obscurity" for protecting our users' privacy. Everything that one of ours users sends and receives is enciphered. It would take centuries for all the world's computers to decipher one of our users' browsing sessions even with full access to the Haystack source code.
"Obscurity," however, does make it much harder to find ways to block our software. Of course the authorities will pour resources into finding a way to do this, and they may temporarily succeed. In that event, we will refine our software and issue a new version that circumvents the restrictions. We will not, however, give the authorities any assistance in this process. By retarding their efforts, we ensure that the Haystack network operates more robustly for longer periods.
Slashdot Mirror
Yo, dawg, we heard you like bein' popular, so we put yo music in a torrent so you can populate the popular opinions of the populus!
The iterations. It's a distress call. A plea for help. A mayday. If the count is right... It's been playing over... and over... for sixteen years.
There are many, many reasons that a contract could be set aside. For example, if LucasFilm misrepresented their claim to owning a trademark on the word "jedi" when they did not in fact hold such a trademark, then the contract may be considered coercive. I highly doubt that the breach of contract will hold up -- and it almost definitely won't if Lucasfilm doesn't win on trademark infringement -- but lawyers always throw everything they can in the hopes that something will stick.
Much of the tubing is interchangeable, and with nurses connecting and disconnecting dozens each day, mix-ups happen -- sometimes with deadly consequences.
They don't even need to do that really; just color code the tubes, or even just the connectors. Red for IV drips, blue for air/O2, purple for CSF, yellow for urethral catheters, brown for colostomy bags, green for drainage, and a happy rainbow for food.
Hmm, that reminds me of something, but I can't quite... Oh right, the Lucky Charms I had for breakfast. :x
If you pour over a piece of someone else's code, document it, talk about it, sleep with it, whatever, you still will not be as intimately familiar with the code as someone who wrote it.
The fact that I can't remember what I wrote last year, let alone how I wrote it, is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
If all software had to hold up to merchantability rules, it would cost orders of magnitude more than top-of-the-line hardware and flaws would *still* exist. Hospitals, banks, governments, etc. pay a minimum of hundreds of thousands of dollars for this sort of software, usually for very specific hardware that's been explicitly and thoroughly tested, and the payback is marginal at best. In other words, be careful what the fuck you wish for.
512MB, made worse by video memory-sharing in typical laptops, and even low-end desktops.. basically anything with Intel integrated graphics. Consumers often fail to account for the fact that hardware resellers and Microsoft have incongruent goals at best, and competing goals at worst. MS wants to take advantage of contemporary and emerging hardware capabilities, so that it's still relevant & usable in several years, even if it's showing some cracks around the edges. Hardware resellers, OTOH, could care less about the future; they want to leverage the lower price of old and current low-end component stock, shoehorning 2+ year-old (or worse) components and technologies -- inventory that both the reseller itself and the OEMs are desperate to get rid of -- into a "brand new system with the latest OS" for maximum profit. And there's lots of room for profit on low-end systems, especially when the OEM pricing of high-end components permits neither appreciable markup nor volume.
At any rate, "caveat emptor" is alive and well in computer sales, and memory is certainly the largest bottleneck (and, ironically, usually one of the cheapest upgrades) in most home PCs.
Taking over the world? No. But you can't have it both ways. Either Linux's adoption in servers, mobile devices, etc. is meaningless, or its lack of adoption on the desktop is meaningful.
Granted, there is a technical distinction between the desktop environment and the Linux kernel, but that distinction is irrelevant to the average user, and as long as it continues to be used as an excuse, it will prevent growth, both qualitative and quantitative.
Finally, as to producing "quality free software" nearly all of it is command-line oriented; GUIs are either tacked on, or left out entirely. I realize *why* apps follow this pattern of design, necessitated by the distinction between kernel and desktop environment, but modularity all too often comes at the expense of tight and seamless integration from the user's perspective, exacerbated by the lack of standardization in controls and widgets.
As the GP stated, the lack of coherence on the desktop is attributable to the "herding cats" nature of development. Nonetheless, it's still a problem that hasn't been adequately addressed, and lack of uptake is, I believe, evidence that "quality free software" is *not* being produced, at least not when the definition of quality includes transparent integration within in a larger environment.
To be fair, the tools and standards for such integration have come a long way in both Gnome and KDE, but unfortunately there is far less than universal adoption of such standards, even within the environments themselves. Worse, there is necessarily a competition of human interface standards between Gnome, KDE, and even the unnecessary tweaks to each made by a given distro. When standards compete, especially on this sort of scale and timeline, everyone loses.
There are plausible methods to unify on a singular vision and prevent forks from creating a rift, but as with the kernel, it does require a final arbiter of some sort, along with his or her popular support. Unfortunately, people with the skill, vision, and benevolence of Linus Torvalds are hard to find. Pick any two, as they say. Not that Linus is god-like by any means, or that he hasn't made bad decisions in the past, but overall he's clearly done a very good job of managing the official kernel, willingly integrating opposing ideas when, if not before, it becomes clear they're superior to his own. He's neither become overly corrupted by his authority, nor leveraged it unduly for personal gain; something quite unlike the Ellisons or Shuttleworths of the world. Naturally people disagree with some, or perhaps many, of Linus' decisions, but it's hard to argue with success. Which brings us full circle to the lack of success of "Linux" (for lack of a more over-arching term) on the desktop.
Yes, yes, and MS-DOS was never written for a 4-bit processor. There's a reason we call them jokes instead of, say, encyclopedias.
Atari? Try Infocom, or any of the other less established companies that produced text adventures into the early 90s.
Which isn't to say that I take exception with this practice; on the contrary, it's an example of why box art needn't accurately represent the contents. The art was simply something to admire, like the dust sleeve of a sci-fi novel. In some cases it added to the overall effect of the game; in others it added to the mystery. And back in the age of a prepubescent internet, genres were less rigid and reviews of a given title could be much harder to come by, so each new game purchase was almost always a mystery.
Of course, there was also *zero* expectation that a game would resemble the cover art back then. Everyone knew this and for the most part nobody cared. These days, a CG scene on a box (or TV commercial) could reasonably be construed to represent the game content, and a variance between the two could therefore be seen as misleading, or worse.
Still, I've always been told that you can't judge a book by its cover, and packaged software, while typically (though not always) sold on a medium other than book/paper, was no exception. That's was as true back then as it is today.
Sounds like the makings of the best Successories poster ever.
Wow. If "taking multiple dicks up the butt" is not serious, then what the hell is?
Boss: "Hey guys, the workload's gonna be a little higher this week. Don't worry, it's nothing serious; I just need you to take multiple dicks up the butt while you complete your projects."
At least give credit where credit is due.
Kingdom fail. Yeast is a fungus.
I dunno, how do highschools deal with the same set of people when Phys. Ed. is required? I imagine they provide alternative coursework or give them a pass. Either way it's a non-issue IMO.
Read it again: peak data rates of at least 200 kbit/s. Peak.
It's a the minimum height of the ceiling, not the floor.
Sorting may be boring to implement repeatedly (tedium by definition), but I found learning the various standard sorting algorithms to be pretty interesting, and a great practical introduction to pointers.
Programming is first and foremost about problem solving, regardless of whether you're creating a game or a spreadsheet, and sorting is a common problem. If you find learning (and discovering) how to solve problems effectively and efficiently to be boring, then you're probably pursuing the wrong line of work.
They didn't "make 3G into a brand"; it has always BEEN a marketing label. There is no such thing as a "3G" wireless signal, rather there are various (existing and emerging) modulation techniques which collectively exist under the 3G label. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G#Overview
Moreover, the signal is the phy layer. The fact that you have a 3G signal doesn't guarantee any minimum performance, any more than having a gigabit NIC guarantees a fast internet connection. It only defines the upper boundary of performance.
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a Coke.
Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to Six Flags.
Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. Keep your kids safe online with Net Nanny.
Mother died today. Should've had a V8.
He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish, but he didn't blame BP.
Fair enough... though if your cleats are warm and alive, you're probably doing it wrong.
You had me at "smellsofbikes."
This whole thing smells of bikes.
You don't get it, man. Like, government "leaks" are just distractions to shift attention away from their true goals. But the true genius is how they make everybody believe they're incompetent! Don't you see?!? If everybody thinks the government is incompetent, then nobody's going to believe they're capable of pulling off such a HUGE conspiracy, and anyone who tries to tell the truth, like me, is labeled as a raving lunatic!
From TFFaq:
8. In keeping the source code a secret, aren't you just relying on "security through obscurity"? Won't authorities eventually discover how your software works anyway?
This charge is difficult to rebut, because under normal conditions, "security through obscurity" is indeed false security. However, Haystack has several properties that make it a special case.
First of all, we do not rely on "obscurity" for protecting our users' privacy. Everything that one of ours users sends and receives is enciphered. It would take centuries for all the world's computers to decipher one of our users' browsing sessions even with full access to the Haystack source code.
"Obscurity," however, does make it much harder to find ways to block our software. Of course the authorities will pour resources into finding a way to do this, and they may temporarily succeed. In that event, we will refine our software and issue a new version that circumvents the restrictions. We will not, however, give the authorities any assistance in this process. By retarding their efforts, we ensure that the Haystack network operates more robustly for longer periods.
The article may be the nonsensical writings of an unsavvy reporter, but the project itself seems real enough.
http://www.censorshipresearch.org/projects/introduction/
http://www.censorshipresearch.org/about/
http://www.haystacknetwork.com/
Nonsense.. It's merely encapsulated to prevent casual observers from seeing what's going on inside.
All the cool programmers drink at the Foo Bar
Whatev, static void. The #- is where it's at.