It's nice to see an open source company finally finding viable niches in which they can actually make money, justifying the hype. Although the whiney open-source `advocates' who don't understand the concept of value-added might complain about the sticker price, when you're looking at salaries in the 80K/yr. range for experts on the subject, paying 2K for a year of support ends up making a lot of sense.
Three cheers for open source companies with viable business models.
Having worked once in IT for several years and now working in R&D, I can only say, it's true. IT developers are the garbagemen of the industry! Everybody in the company was bossing us around, especially customer support. Now fuck, customer support begs me for the smallest little answers and I tell them to fuck off. Hell we all know in R&D programmers rule! Product managers don't do shit, except maybe play solitare and chit-chat. The best dev managers just stay the fuck away. Marketing cronies can be annoying but you always have that edge because they never really know exactly what the fuck they are talking about. The worst challenge are the high-level managers that treat us like resources and move us from project-to-project willy nilly. Those IT developers, I don't feel sorry for them, they don't do shit, I remember how it was, surfing slashdot all day, sending off an half a dozen emails and writing a couple queries against the crm database. You guys can kiss my ass, because we've earned our place here.
Seriously try the latest nightly builds. It has not crashed once in hours of testing. The bad rap that mozilla had is now in the past. The renderer is just as fast and clean as ie5+. I switch between ie6beta and mozila-nightly and the page display quality is equal. mozilla loads the pages just as fast if not faster now. It's also not such a resource/memory hog. Finally, the new modern theme is really nice. Try it before you bitch again!
Not only were we stupid to do the price adjustments, we're really sorry about patenting the mouse click. We were just kidding about that one. As soon as we run out of vulture capital, we will close our doors, shutdown our website, and donate the patent on the mouse click to the FSF.
I've found in life that paranoids dream of fantasies that are much more interesting than real life, whether it's big business, big government, CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. At the same time, it doesn't mean the paranoids aren't right after a fashion.
For example, Ronald Reagon in the early 1980's purposefully caused the recession at that time. Inflation was at 14% and getting worse. According to economic theory, you should be able jack up interest rates, throw millions of people out of work, and within a year the economy will recover, but resume at a much lower inflation rate.
As it turns out, Ronnie was right. But try explaining that to the people at the beginning of the recession who lost their jobs. I'm sure if they really understood how much control the government has over whether or not to force the country into a recession, they would be majorly pissed off.
Likewise, consider US cryptographic export restrictions. While its theoretical purpose is to make it easier for the NSA to spy on foreigners, it has the weird effect of reducing encryption within the United States. The average person in the US uses 40-bit encryption. Lots of products (such as the new AirPort wireless LAN) use 40-bit encryption because of this, even within the US. I think the government really does understand that export restrictions really have an effect on the encryption used by their own population.
On the other hand, I like low-inflation, and I also like the fact that I personally have easy access to 128-bit encryption but that the average stupid criminal doesn't. In other words, I think I like conspiracies.:)
It seems clear that this whole hullabaloo boils down to stopping people from copying movies. This is in the movie studios' interest. But with the exception of Sony, are there any monitor manufacturers who are in bed with movie producers? If not, why would a manufacturer want to go to all the trouble and added expense?
I think the only answer would be customer demand. So how can the movie studios create this demand? By releasing movies that will ONLY be playable on conforming equipment.
But this is going to be a huge hurdle, much bigger than the introduction of DVDs. With a DVD, at most you have to buy a DVD-ROM drive or a DVD player that now costs under $200. But this new protected videostream is going to require you to buy a new protected DVD player AND a new protected TV. (Or for PC folks, a new video card and a new monitor.) Now you're paying at least $500, probably closer to $1000. That's pretty severe! These movies are going to have to be awfully good to make it worthwhile for anyone who isn't rolling in money.
The eventual disappearance of NTSC broadcasts is going to be tough enough to sell even when "all" most folks have to do is buy a set-top box. But tell everyone that they must replace every TV they own, and I don't think they'll go for it.
Therefore, I think the only way for this to go through in a big way is for the movie studios to get together and buy all the major monitor manufacturers. Good luck, fellas.
Believe it or not Microsoft has got to actually SELL copies of Windows XP. If Windows XP is chuck full of stupid "features" that are actually disincentives to the upgrade then people will stick with what they have. This is nearly as dangerous for Microsoft as if the user had switched to Linux. Remember, Microsoft's biggest competitor isn't Corel, or Oracle, or IBM, or even the amorphous "Linux," Micrsoft's biggest competitor is previous versions of their own software.
Even worse issues like games and compatibility with work also make it more likely that people will stick with what they have. I don't know of any businesses that have rolled out Windows XP (nor do I know of any that have done a serious desktop rollout of Windows 2000, for that matter). They should be making their operating system as attractive to buyers as they possibly can. Instead they are lining up an initiative to treat their customers as copyright breaking thieves. Things like WMA and the new copy protection scheme aren't likely to entire current Windows users to this new OS.
Meanwhile Linux will continue to grow. naysayers have been predicting its imminent demise since it's first arrival on the scene, and they have always been spectacularly wrong. The reason for this is simple, Linux is too darned useful. It's price tag is a siren song for hackers and entrepreneurs everywhere, and the cost of maintaining the infrastructure that keeps Linux alive is negligible. Microsoft can't bankrupt Linux, it can't buy Linux, and it can't intimidate enough Linuxers to make a difference.
This doesn't make Linux better than Windows. I personally don't think that Linux is ready for the desktop, for example. But it does guarantee that Linux will keep growing, and that it will continue to become a more viable alternative every day. If Microsoft continues to misuse their customers they will someday find that most of them are jumping ship.
Wasn't this technology invented in the 70's?
on
Bioinformatics
·
· Score: 1
I think Lee Majors the first person to use get this... Pretty cool for impressing the chicks.
The basic NT security *model* is excellent (particulary compared to the Unix owner/group/world model). It is the *implementation* of that model which sucks rocks. If it actually worked as designed, NT's security would be impressive.
Compare this to OpenBSD. OpenBSD may be based on a dated security model, but it is a ROCK SOLID implementation of that model. It dosn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one to use where security is critical.
GWBASIC IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE ONLY GOOD PROGRAMMING LANGAGE EVER!!!
Sure, it may have taken 200 lines of code to make a window, but rememeber the kind of satisfaction you got out of it?
Back in my day, we had to fill up 5000 lines a day, just to make minimum wage. When the non-basic programs came out, our company had to be downsized. I had my best friend. Shortly after, I had to hire someone new just to fire myself.
Bring back GWBasic!
P.S. Would anyone who actually has a copy of it email it to me? I can't seem to find it anywhere, and I'm not going to learn a new language, especially an inferior one like C#.
Wonder if the odd-numbered truth will hold up for series as well as the movies...
1: The Motion Picture
2: The Wrath of Kahn
3: The Search for Spock
4: The Voyage Home
5: The Final Frontier
6: The Undiscovered Country (end of TOS)
7: Generations
8: First Contact
9: Insurrection
I personally don't question the man's genius. I love Emacs, and anyone who can write a compiler (particularly one as good as gcc) is a hacker's hacker as far as I'm concerned.
But there's no way I can ever tolerate his distorted vision for the future of software. To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.
I love free software; I love the quality of it. I deeply appreciate the time that the authors of it have invested. But the bottom line is that free code is a GIFT. It is not an obligation. It is not more ethical than proprietary software (note that this is absolutely different from the business practices of companies and individuals, which can be positively immoral). That is not where its superiority lies. The superiority is in the code.
For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom! I cannot do just anything with GPL-ed code. So Stallman's blathering about "free" software is a little disingenuous. What he really means is that he (or the FSF) should dictate how we use software. Of course, a software author has the right to release his code (if he does so at all) under whatever terms he wishes. But let's be completely honest: GPL-ed software is not literally and wholly free. It is "mostly" free (yes, I can distinguish between free beer and free speech). I can't do just anything I wish with it.
Stallman needs to get a grip. If he would change his focus from one of religious zealotry to one wherein he encourages developers to give gifts, he would be a lot more tolerable. As it is, he can be a royal pain.
The answer is if you use the Gregorian Calendar and start the first
millennium with the year 1 AD then the third millennium begins with the year
2001 AD. But if you use the Common Era Calendar, in which years are numbered
-2, -1, 0, 1, 2,..., and you begin the first millennium with the year 0 CE
then the third millennium begins with the year 2000 CE. You have a choice. And
if you opt for the Common Era Calendar you no longer have to put up with the
smug assertion that "there was no year zero (so the new millennium begins in
2001)". There was no year zero when Pope Gregory XIII introduced the Gregorian
Calendar in the 16th Century but there certainly is one now, and the new
millennium in the Common Era Calendar begins in 2000 CE.
The number zero was introduced into westerm circles, along with the
Arabic numerals we use to day, in the 13th century, but the church refused to
allow them to be used, simply on the grounds that they were invented by Muslims.
However, zero and the numbering system we use today did eventually make it into
acceptance by the 16th century, and greatly simplified mathematics in Europe.
We can't really blame the church for 2000/2001 issue, because the current year
numbering system that we used (2 BC, 1 BC, 1 AD,...) was originally designed by
a monk in either the 7th or 8th century, before we even heard of the Arabic
numbering system or zero.
Roman numerals do not have a figure designating zero, and treating zero
as a number on an equal footing with other numbers was not common in the 6th
century when our present year reckoning was established by Dionysius Exiguus.
Dionysius let the year AD 1 start one week after what he believed to be Jesus'
birthday. Therefore, AD 1 follows immediately after 1 BC with no intervening
year zero. So a person who was born in 10 BC and died in AD 10, would have died
at the age of 19, not 20. Furthermore, Dionysius' calculations were wrong. The
Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus was born under the reign of King Herod the
Great, and he died in 4 BC. It is likely that Jesus was actually born around 7
BC. The date of his birth is unknown; it may or may not be 25 December.
Since the "Anno Domini" system did not come into effect until the 6th
Century A.D. it is artificial to speak of the years 1 A.D., 100 A.D., etc.,
because people living at that time knew nothing of this system of numbering
years (since it had not then been invented yet). Furthermore the Romans in the
reign of Augustus (27 B.C. to 14 A.D.) were somewhat lax in the proper
observance of leap years. But we can project backwards (and forwards) from 525
A.D. by representing the succession of years by the series of natural numbers:
1, 2, 3,..., 100,..., 500,... Then we can say that the period from 1 A.D.
through 10 A.D. (including both years) was a period of ten years (since there
are ten numbers in the series 1, 2,..., 10). Similarly from 1 A.D. through 100
A.D. is a period of 100 years, and from 1 A.D. to 1000 A.D. is a period of 1000
years.
The word "millennium" means "a period of 1000 years" so we can conclude
that the period from 1 A.D. through 1000 A.D. (including both years) constituted
one millennium, and in fact, the first millennium of the Christian era. So the
second millennium of the Christian era begins with the year 1001 A.D., or more
exactly, on 1st January 1001 A.D. And the third millennium of the Christian era
begins on 1st January 2001 A.D. So for Christians - or at least, for all who
adhere to the Christian system of numbering years - the answer is clear: The new
millennium begins on 1st January 2001 A.D. However, this is not the end of the
matter, because the "Anno Domini" system of year numbering has a major flaw,
namely, it may be OK for years since 1 A.D., but what happens when we consider
earlier years? As is well known, such years are numbered in reverse order, and
designated as years "Before Christ". Thus the year immediately before 1 A.D. is
designated 1 B.C., and the series extends backwards: 2 B.C., 3 B.C., etc.
With the rise of modern scholarship, particularly astronomy, archaeology
and chronological studies, this system was felt to be inadequate for scientific
purposes. For one thing it does not lend itself to calculation using dates. For
example (a very simple one), how many years elapsed between 1st January 6 B.C.
and 1st January 6 A.D.? Twelve years? No. The answer is not obvious (and still
less obvious if we consider longer periods such as that from 535 B.C. to 481
A.D.). So astronomers and chronologists decided to number years by representing
the succession of years by the doubly-infinite series of positive and negative
numbers:..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3... This is called the "astronomical"
system of numbering years. In this system years from 1 onwards have the same
numbers as years A.D. (year 1 = 1 A.D., and so on), but years B.C. are related
as follows: The year 0 in the astronomical system is the year 1 B.C., and the
year -n in the astronomical system is the year n+1 B.C. (for n = 1, 2, 3,...).
Conversely, the year n B.C. is the year -(n-1) in the astronomical system. Thus
year -1 = 2 B.C., year -2 = 3 B.C., and so on.
A millennium is, by definition, a period of 1000 years. But it is no
part of the definition that a millennium must begin or end with a particular
year number. If we adopt the astronomical year numbering system then we can
begin the "first" millennium with year 0 just as well as with year 1. Strictly
speaking, there is no first millennium in the astronomical system, since it
simply numbers years by mapping them onto the sequence..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2,
..., and we are free to begin millennia where we think fit. It is thus clear
that the answer to the question as to when the new millennium begins depends on
which system of year-numbering one chooses to use. Christians may prefer to stay
with the system of years "Anno Domini", in which case they must answer that the
new millennium begins on 1st January 2001 A.D. Scientists and others who prefer
a more rational and useful system of numbering years may prefer to adopt
explicitly the astronomical system. In this case they are free to begin
millennia from the years 1, 1001, 2001, and so on (in which case the third
millennium begins on 1st January 2001), or from the years 0, 1000, 2000, and so
on (in which case the third millennium begins on 1st January 2000). Thus anyone
who wishes, for whatever reason, to celebrate the start of the new millennium on
1st January 2000 has entirely good and rational grounds for doing so, namely,
(i) the adoption of the astronomical system for numbering years, combined with
(ii) the convention of beginning millennia with years whose numbers end in "000"
(and beginning centuries with years whose numbers end in "00"). Note that this
article does not show that those who hold (as those who adhere to the Christian
calendar must hold) that the new millennium begins on 1st January 2001 are
mistaken. Such people have reasons to justify their preference. But this does
show that anyone who prefers to think of the year 2000 as the first year of the
new millennium has perfectly sound reasons for doing so.
XFS is optimised for dealing with streaming media, and so deals well with high IO and large files.
JFS has been around for years under AIX. It's a well proven general purpose journalling filesystem.
ReiserFS is the best established of the Linux journalling filesystems. It has several fairly innovative features and is more efficient than ext2 in terms of space utilisation. People are using it as their primary filesystem now, although it's still in development.
EXT3 is (unsurprisingly) a development of EXT2. It lacks most of the pretty features of the other journalled filesystems, but has the significant advantage that you can turn EXT2 partitions into EXT3 (and vice versa) without any trouble at all.
I wouldn't dismiss Caldera's philosophy based on its "outsider" position in the community -- often it is the outsiders that have the clearest viewpoints.
To say that Linux is silencing others because of its success is probably exaggerating things a bit, but on the other hand it's partially true. Linux has a public relations momentum that most other alternatives don't. It's Pepsi to Microsoft's Coke. I'm sure that BeOS and others wish they had even a part of what the Linux movement now takes for granted.
Is proprietary software all that bad? I would say no, as long as it is in moderation. People should have the right to make proprietary software if they so desire, as long as they realize the benefits they are missing out on. The strength of the Linux movement is that it is primarily open source and free-as-in-speech. Nevertheless, every movement needs some variety.
In a sense, the GPL is a strict and binding way to make things free and public. Does that sound contradictory at all? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that I see his point.
Is it possible that the demand for open source code is to strong at times? Personally, I don't think so. What makes Linux wonderful is that if you want to change something, you just dig in and do it. I disagree with Love on this particular point.
Playing Quake like this causing health problems?
on
PanQuake
·
· Score: 4
I recently read some research (in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), but I can't find the article at the moment) which proved that some 3d game engines are potentially dangerous to health. The researchers reported that the dangers to health increase exponentially as the size of the screen on which the games is played increases.
The problem is to do with the way the game engine handle 3d images around the edge of the screen, and the way in which these images are processed by the brain. The researchers measured the EEG (electroencephalogram, "brain waves") of gamers whilst playing 3d games. The researchers noted that the EEG changed from its normal "beta" activity (characterised by 14-60Hz oscillations), and gained a low frequency component (delta waves, in the 0.5-2Hz range, which normally only occur during deep sleep).
The researchers attributed this change in brain activity to high frequency components in the rapidly changing images at the side of the screen in some 3d engines. The effect of these high frequency images on the gamer's peripheral vision caused desynchronisation of the gamers EEG rhythms, leading to headaches, irritability, nausea and (in the worse cases) epileptic attacks. The researchers found that these unfortunate side effects got considerably worse when the games were played on large screens.
My question is, will playing Quake on a huge screen like that in a CAVE be responsible for causing serious health problems in gamers?
Slashdot Mirror
It's nice to see an open source company finally finding viable niches in which they can actually make money, justifying the hype. Although the whiney open-source `advocates' who don't understand the concept of value-added might complain about the sticker price, when you're looking at salaries in the 80K/yr. range for experts on the subject, paying 2K for a year of support ends up making a lot of sense.
Three cheers for open source companies with viable business models.
Having worked once in IT for several years and now working in R&D, I can only say, it's true. IT developers are the garbagemen of the industry! Everybody in the company was bossing us around, especially customer support. Now fuck, customer support begs me for the smallest little answers and I tell them to fuck off. Hell we all know in R&D programmers rule! Product managers don't do shit, except maybe play solitare and chit-chat. The best dev managers just stay the fuck away. Marketing cronies can be annoying but you always have that edge because they never really know exactly what the fuck they are talking about. The worst challenge are the high-level managers that treat us like resources and move us from project-to-project willy nilly. Those IT developers, I don't feel sorry for them, they don't do shit, I remember how it was, surfing slashdot all day, sending off an half a dozen emails and writing a couple queries against the crm database. You guys can kiss my ass, because we've earned our place here.
Seriously try the latest nightly builds. It has not crashed once in hours of testing. The bad rap that mozilla had is now in the past. The renderer is just as fast and clean as ie5+. I switch between ie6beta and mozila-nightly and the page display quality is equal. mozilla loads the pages just as fast if not faster now. It's also not such a resource/memory hog. Finally, the new modern theme is really nice. Try it before you bitch again!
Dear Amazon Customer:
Not only were we stupid to do the price adjustments, we're really sorry about patenting the mouse click. We were just kidding about that one. As soon as we run out of vulture capital, we will close our doors, shutdown our website, and donate the patent on the mouse click to the FSF.
Sincerly,
Jeff Bezos
tivo
I've found in life that paranoids dream of fantasies that are much more interesting than real life, whether it's big business, big government, CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. At the same time, it doesn't mean the paranoids aren't right after a fashion.
:)
For example, Ronald Reagon in the early 1980's purposefully caused the recession at that time. Inflation was at 14% and getting worse. According to economic theory, you should be able jack up interest rates, throw millions of people out of work, and within a year the economy will recover, but resume at a much lower inflation rate.
As it turns out, Ronnie was right. But try explaining that to the people at the beginning of the recession who lost their jobs. I'm sure if they really understood how much control the government has over whether or not to force the country into a recession, they would be majorly pissed off.
Likewise, consider US cryptographic export restrictions. While its theoretical purpose is to make it easier for the NSA to spy on foreigners, it has the weird effect of reducing encryption within the United States. The average person in the US uses 40-bit encryption. Lots of products (such as the new AirPort wireless LAN) use 40-bit encryption because of this, even within the US. I think the government really does understand that export restrictions really have an effect on the encryption used by their own population.
On the other hand, I like low-inflation, and I also like the fact that I personally have easy access to 128-bit encryption but that the average stupid criminal doesn't. In other words, I think I like conspiracies.
It seems clear that this whole hullabaloo boils down to stopping people from copying movies. This is in the movie studios' interest. But with the exception of Sony, are there any monitor manufacturers who are in bed with movie producers? If not, why would a manufacturer want to go to all the trouble and added expense?
I think the only answer would be customer demand. So how can the movie studios create this demand? By releasing movies that will ONLY be playable on conforming equipment.
But this is going to be a huge hurdle, much bigger than the introduction of DVDs. With a DVD, at most you have to buy a DVD-ROM drive or a DVD player that now costs under $200. But this new protected videostream is going to require you to buy a new protected DVD player AND a new protected TV. (Or for PC folks, a new video card and a new monitor.) Now you're paying at least $500, probably closer to $1000. That's pretty severe! These movies are going to have to be awfully good to make it worthwhile for anyone who isn't rolling in money.
The eventual disappearance of NTSC broadcasts is going to be tough enough to sell even when "all" most folks have to do is buy a set-top box. But tell everyone that they must replace every TV they own, and I don't think they'll go for it.
Therefore, I think the only way for this to go through in a big way is for the movie studios to get together and buy all the major monitor manufacturers. Good luck, fellas.
The Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster
(Score:5, Funny)
by phossie
What is the origin of the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster, and how would you make one on Earth?
I need to know.
DA:
Unfortunately there are a number of environmental and weapons treaties and laws of physics which prevent one being mixed on Earth. Sorry.
Believe it or not Microsoft has got to actually SELL copies of Windows XP. If Windows XP is chuck full of stupid "features" that are actually disincentives to the upgrade then people will stick with what they have. This is nearly as dangerous for Microsoft as if the user had switched to Linux. Remember, Microsoft's biggest competitor isn't Corel, or Oracle, or IBM, or even the amorphous "Linux," Micrsoft's biggest competitor is previous versions of their own software.
Even worse issues like games and compatibility with work also make it more likely that people will stick with what they have. I don't know of any businesses that have rolled out Windows XP (nor do I know of any that have done a serious desktop rollout of Windows 2000, for that matter). They should be making their operating system as attractive to buyers as they possibly can. Instead they are lining up an initiative to treat their customers as copyright breaking thieves. Things like WMA and the new copy protection scheme aren't likely to entire current Windows users to this new OS.
Meanwhile Linux will continue to grow. naysayers have been predicting its imminent demise since it's first arrival on the scene, and they have always been spectacularly wrong. The reason for this is simple, Linux is too darned useful. It's price tag is a siren song for hackers and entrepreneurs everywhere, and the cost of maintaining the infrastructure that keeps Linux alive is negligible. Microsoft can't bankrupt Linux, it can't buy Linux, and it can't intimidate enough Linuxers to make a difference.
This doesn't make Linux better than Windows. I personally don't think that Linux is ready for the desktop, for example. But it does guarantee that Linux will keep growing, and that it will continue to become a more viable alternative every day. If Microsoft continues to misuse their customers they will someday find that most of them are jumping ship.
I think Lee Majors the first person to use get this... Pretty cool for impressing the chicks.
The basic NT security *model* is excellent (particulary compared to the Unix owner/group/world model). It is the *implementation* of that model which sucks rocks. If it actually worked as designed, NT's security would be impressive. Compare this to OpenBSD. OpenBSD may be based on a dated security model, but it is a ROCK SOLID implementation of that model. It dosn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one to use where security is critical.
GWBASIC IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE ONLY GOOD PROGRAMMING LANGAGE EVER!!!
Sure, it may have taken 200 lines of code to make a window, but rememeber the kind of satisfaction you got out of it?
Back in my day, we had to fill up 5000 lines a day, just to make minimum wage. When the non-basic programs came out, our company had to be downsized. I had my best friend. Shortly after, I had to hire someone new just to fire myself.
Bring back GWBasic!
P.S. Would anyone who actually has a copy of it email it to me? I can't seem to find it anywhere, and I'm not going to learn a new language, especially an inferior one like C#.
Wonder if the odd-numbered truth will hold up for series as well as the movies... 1: The Motion Picture 2: The Wrath of Kahn 3: The Search for Spock 4: The Voyage Home 5: The Final Frontier 6: The Undiscovered Country (end of TOS) 7: Generations 8: First Contact 9: Insurrection
I personally don't question the man's genius. I love Emacs, and anyone who can write a compiler (particularly one as good as gcc) is a hacker's hacker as far as I'm concerned.
But there's no way I can ever tolerate his distorted vision for the future of software. To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.
I love free software; I love the quality of it. I deeply appreciate the time that the authors of it have invested. But the bottom line is that free code is a GIFT. It is not an obligation. It is not more ethical than proprietary software (note that this is absolutely different from the business practices of companies and individuals, which can be positively immoral). That is not where its superiority lies. The superiority is in the code.
For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom! I cannot do just anything with GPL-ed code. So Stallman's blathering about "free" software is a little disingenuous. What he really means is that he (or the FSF) should dictate how we use software. Of course, a software author has the right to release his code (if he does so at all) under whatever terms he wishes. But let's be completely honest: GPL-ed software is not literally and wholly free. It is "mostly" free (yes, I can distinguish between free beer and free speech). I can't do just anything I wish with it.
Stallman needs to get a grip. If he would change his focus from one of religious zealotry to one wherein he encourages developers to give gifts, he would be a lot more tolerable. As it is, he can be a royal pain.
Nevertheless, he is a genius.
"Perl is worse than Python because people
wanted it worse." - Larry Wall, 14 Oct 1998
When does the Millennium Begin?
..., and you begin the first millennium with the year 0 CE
...) was originally designed by
..., 100, ..., 500, ... Then we can say that the period from 1 A.D.
..., 10). Similarly from 1 A.D. through 100
..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 ... This is called the "astronomical"
...).
..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2,
The answer is if you use the Gregorian Calendar and start the first
millennium with the year 1 AD then the third millennium begins with the year
2001 AD. But if you use the Common Era Calendar, in which years are numbered
-2, -1, 0, 1, 2,
then the third millennium begins with the year 2000 CE. You have a choice. And
if you opt for the Common Era Calendar you no longer have to put up with the
smug assertion that "there was no year zero (so the new millennium begins in
2001)". There was no year zero when Pope Gregory XIII introduced the Gregorian
Calendar in the 16th Century but there certainly is one now, and the new
millennium in the Common Era Calendar begins in 2000 CE.
The number zero was introduced into westerm circles, along with the
Arabic numerals we use to day, in the 13th century, but the church refused to
allow them to be used, simply on the grounds that they were invented by Muslims.
However, zero and the numbering system we use today did eventually make it into
acceptance by the 16th century, and greatly simplified mathematics in Europe.
We can't really blame the church for 2000/2001 issue, because the current year
numbering system that we used (2 BC, 1 BC, 1 AD,
a monk in either the 7th or 8th century, before we even heard of the Arabic
numbering system or zero.
Roman numerals do not have a figure designating zero, and treating zero
as a number on an equal footing with other numbers was not common in the 6th
century when our present year reckoning was established by Dionysius Exiguus.
Dionysius let the year AD 1 start one week after what he believed to be Jesus'
birthday. Therefore, AD 1 follows immediately after 1 BC with no intervening
year zero. So a person who was born in 10 BC and died in AD 10, would have died
at the age of 19, not 20. Furthermore, Dionysius' calculations were wrong. The
Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus was born under the reign of King Herod the
Great, and he died in 4 BC. It is likely that Jesus was actually born around 7
BC. The date of his birth is unknown; it may or may not be 25 December.
Since the "Anno Domini" system did not come into effect until the 6th
Century A.D. it is artificial to speak of the years 1 A.D., 100 A.D., etc.,
because people living at that time knew nothing of this system of numbering
years (since it had not then been invented yet). Furthermore the Romans in the
reign of Augustus (27 B.C. to 14 A.D.) were somewhat lax in the proper
observance of leap years. But we can project backwards (and forwards) from 525
A.D. by representing the succession of years by the series of natural numbers:
1, 2, 3,
through 10 A.D. (including both years) was a period of ten years (since there
are ten numbers in the series 1, 2,
A.D. is a period of 100 years, and from 1 A.D. to 1000 A.D. is a period of 1000
years.
The word "millennium" means "a period of 1000 years" so we can conclude
that the period from 1 A.D. through 1000 A.D. (including both years) constituted
one millennium, and in fact, the first millennium of the Christian era. So the
second millennium of the Christian era begins with the year 1001 A.D., or more
exactly, on 1st January 1001 A.D. And the third millennium of the Christian era
begins on 1st January 2001 A.D. So for Christians - or at least, for all who
adhere to the Christian system of numbering years - the answer is clear: The new
millennium begins on 1st January 2001 A.D. However, this is not the end of the
matter, because the "Anno Domini" system of year numbering has a major flaw,
namely, it may be OK for years since 1 A.D., but what happens when we consider
earlier years? As is well known, such years are numbered in reverse order, and
designated as years "Before Christ". Thus the year immediately before 1 A.D. is
designated 1 B.C., and the series extends backwards: 2 B.C., 3 B.C., etc.
With the rise of modern scholarship, particularly astronomy, archaeology
and chronological studies, this system was felt to be inadequate for scientific
purposes. For one thing it does not lend itself to calculation using dates. For
example (a very simple one), how many years elapsed between 1st January 6 B.C.
and 1st January 6 A.D.? Twelve years? No. The answer is not obvious (and still
less obvious if we consider longer periods such as that from 535 B.C. to 481
A.D.). So astronomers and chronologists decided to number years by representing
the succession of years by the doubly-infinite series of positive and negative
numbers:
system of numbering years. In this system years from 1 onwards have the same
numbers as years A.D. (year 1 = 1 A.D., and so on), but years B.C. are related
as follows: The year 0 in the astronomical system is the year 1 B.C., and the
year -n in the astronomical system is the year n+1 B.C. (for n = 1, 2, 3,
Conversely, the year n B.C. is the year -(n-1) in the astronomical system. Thus
year -1 = 2 B.C., year -2 = 3 B.C., and so on.
A millennium is, by definition, a period of 1000 years. But it is no
part of the definition that a millennium must begin or end with a particular
year number. If we adopt the astronomical year numbering system then we can
begin the "first" millennium with year 0 just as well as with year 1. Strictly
speaking, there is no first millennium in the astronomical system, since it
simply numbers years by mapping them onto the sequence
..., and we are free to begin millennia where we think fit. It is thus clear
that the answer to the question as to when the new millennium begins depends on
which system of year-numbering one chooses to use. Christians may prefer to stay
with the system of years "Anno Domini", in which case they must answer that the
new millennium begins on 1st January 2001 A.D. Scientists and others who prefer
a more rational and useful system of numbering years may prefer to adopt
explicitly the astronomical system. In this case they are free to begin
millennia from the years 1, 1001, 2001, and so on (in which case the third
millennium begins on 1st January 2001), or from the years 0, 1000, 2000, and so
on (in which case the third millennium begins on 1st January 2000). Thus anyone
who wishes, for whatever reason, to celebrate the start of the new millennium on
1st January 2000 has entirely good and rational grounds for doing so, namely,
(i) the adoption of the astronomical system for numbering years, combined with
(ii) the convention of beginning millennia with years whose numbers end in "000"
(and beginning centuries with years whose numbers end in "00"). Note that this
article does not show that those who hold (as those who adhere to the Christian
calendar must hold) that the new millennium begins on 1st January 2001 are
mistaken. Such people have reasons to justify their preference. But this does
show that anyone who prefers to think of the year 2000 as the first year of the
new millennium has perfectly sound reasons for doing so.
XFS is optimised for dealing with streaming media, and so deals well with high IO and large files.
JFS has been around for years under AIX. It's a well proven general purpose journalling filesystem.
ReiserFS is the best established of the Linux journalling filesystems. It has several fairly innovative features and is more efficient than ext2 in terms of space utilisation. People are using it as their primary filesystem now, although it's still in development.
EXT3 is (unsurprisingly) a development of EXT2. It lacks most of the pretty features of the other journalled filesystems, but has the significant advantage that you can turn EXT2 partitions into EXT3 (and vice versa) without any trouble at all.
I wouldn't dismiss Caldera's philosophy based on its "outsider" position in the community -- often it is the outsiders that have the clearest viewpoints.
To say that Linux is silencing others because of its success is probably exaggerating things a bit, but on the other hand it's partially true. Linux has a public relations momentum that most other alternatives don't. It's Pepsi to Microsoft's Coke. I'm sure that BeOS and others wish they had even a part of what the Linux movement now takes for granted.
Is proprietary software all that bad? I would say no, as long as it is in moderation. People should have the right to make proprietary software if they so desire, as long as they realize the benefits they are missing out on. The strength of the Linux movement is that it is primarily open source and free-as-in-speech. Nevertheless, every movement needs some variety.
In a sense, the GPL is a strict and binding way to make things free and public. Does that sound contradictory at all? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that I see his point.
Is it possible that the demand for open source code is to strong at times? Personally, I don't think so. What makes Linux wonderful is that if you want to change something, you just dig in and do it. I disagree with Love on this particular point.
I recently read some research (in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), but I can't find the article at the moment) which proved that some 3d game engines are potentially dangerous to health. The researchers reported that the dangers to health increase exponentially as the size of the screen on which the games is played increases.
The problem is to do with the way the game engine handle 3d images around the edge of the screen, and the way in which these images are processed by the brain. The researchers measured the EEG (electroencephalogram, "brain waves") of gamers whilst playing 3d games. The researchers noted that the EEG changed from its normal "beta" activity (characterised by 14-60Hz oscillations), and gained a low frequency component (delta waves, in the 0.5-2Hz range, which normally only occur during deep sleep).
The researchers attributed this change in brain activity to high frequency components in the rapidly changing images at the side of the screen in some 3d engines. The effect of these high frequency images on the gamer's peripheral vision caused desynchronisation of the gamers EEG rhythms, leading to headaches, irritability, nausea and (in the worse cases) epileptic attacks. The researchers found that these unfortunate side effects got considerably worse when the games were played on large screens.
My question is, will playing Quake on a huge screen like that in a CAVE be responsible for causing serious health problems in gamers?