Yeah, make sure to stick to just numbers, because "Cairo", "Windows XP Home SP2", "Longhorn", "Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs", "Windows Vista Business x64 SP1" and "Windows Server 2008" are really hard to remember and keep straight compared to "NT 5.1.xxxx" and "NT 6.0.xxxx" for most consumers.;-)
If you contend that "Ubuntu 7.10, Gutsy Gibbon" is any more silly than "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition", "Windows Vista Home Premium", or "Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005" I'd have to disagree.
The very fact that Microsoft calls 2000 brand new, then XP brand new, then Vista brand new, and keeps a 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.1+, 6.0 numbering scheme that it tells the average consumer nothing about is very revealing, IMO. They're in the identity management game with NT. It's all new versions of NT, but the names differentiate them for customers. Sure, the new versions sometimes do include lots of improvements. I'm not arguing that Vista is just NT 4 with Aero. It's still clearly not a written-from-scratch OS like the name suggests. Even their own version numbers say otherwise.
Interestingly enough, Darl McBride and Co. have killed one of the top ten closed-source Unix vendors, strengthened the Linux market, and helped bring about major improvements in how Open Source people document their code contributions. If his goal was destroying Open Source in favor of Closed Source, he achieved pretty much the opposite.
Sun, IBM, HP, and Apple (who all sell Unix on Intel-powered hardware (although HP's Intel hardware of choice is Itanium)) are likely not at all upset that SCO is no longer going to be trying to bill themselves as the premier Intel-compatible Unix. All of these companies of course also sell or have sold Unix on other hardware (Sparc, Power, PA-RISC, Alpha, PowerPC, Motorola 68k to name a few). Sun and IBM are two fairly strong supporters of Linux, too, although they both tout their proprietary Unix platforms as well. HP has business relationships and/or offers support for Red Hat, Oracle, Novell's Suse, Red Flag, Mandriva, and Debian.
SGI used to have IRIX, but they are phasing it out in favor of Linux (but Windows still survives on some SGI lines). SGI, being the class act it is, offers support for existing IRIX customers until at least 2013 (or the company's long-rumored folding, whichever comes first -- they actually came back from Chapter 11). RHEL and SLES are both available, supported options on Altix. SLES seems to be preferred.
It appears most of the closed-source Unix companies know the value Linux can offer. If they're not moving from closed-source solutions to Linux, then they're making it clear that Linux is an option. It's interesting that many of the companies willing to go in big for Linux sell something besides operating systems. Hardware, databases, visualization software, and directory software seem like good compliments to an OS, and vendors selling those items are just who is embracing Linux. Even Apple, who hasn't done much to embrace Linux, isn't adversarial to it. Parallels (third-party, of course) and Boot Camp (Apple) both can give access to any of the x86 or x86-64 Linux distros on the newer Macs, while PowerPC Macs dual-boot with Linux just fine.
I'm guessing you know about covering dividends, one-time special payments, and the like to the long holder. Short selling is fraught with danger, but boy can't it be handy?
YouTube reserves the right to reuse, rebroadcast, repackage, and a lot more with any of the content you post for free on their site. They also reserve the right to sublicense these rights. It's quite possible Viacom did the Web Junk 2.0 show using his commercial with permission from YouTube.
Of course, that doesn't mean he doesn't have fair use rights to show what they said about a work he originally made. My guess is that since this guy made a Star Wars parody for a political campaign, he might understand at least a bit about his rights of fair use even if he overlooked YouTube's one-sided use policy.
For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.
One problem is that the changes should be able to be licensed under the GPL, but how do you license only part of the source differently?
Perhaps the best thing is to keep those parts that came in as BSD licensed as BSD, and the modifications to those as BSD, but t include the BSD code alongside GPLed code, but on a file-by-file basis? Then, though, you run into real "derivative work" issues when you link them together.
Perhaps the most equitable fix is to stop sharing code between GPL and BSD projects. That's fair, but it's not particularly helpful to either side.
Anyone working from the BSD version can do what they like from there. They can't pull GPLed code out of a GPLed project and put it into a BSD project, though. What is amounts to is that they can re-implement the improvements the GPL people made but they have to make those improvements themselves rather than using the GPLed code as a starting point.
The issue is that there are two different freedoms at stake, and the two camps keep talking past one another because they are each favoring their own type of freedom. The BSD people think you, as a developer, should have the right to do with the code what you want (as long as you meet the attributions and such). The GPL people think that the people to whom you, the developer, distribute the code should have the rights to do whatever they want with the code (except for distributing it without source or taking those same rights away from the people to whom they redistribute it).
So it's not that the BSD people will have to write something inferior to the GPL version if a BSD project egts improved upon as GPL. It's just that they don't get the advantage of the GPLed source to do it. It's the same tradeoff they make in allowing closed-source BSD derivatives.
Personally, I'm a proponent of both licenses. I think each is great for its own focus.
The polite thing to do for a GPL person to do when they want to GPL some BSD code and improvments to it is to:
contact the BSD-licensing author
inform him/her of the intent to do a GPLed version
contribute back anything made for the initial GPLed version to the BSD-licensed project
license the results as GPL, hopefully with good will and blessings from the author who licensed it as BSD
That way, the BSD project benefits from the improvements made in that round, which is more than if it was taken closed-source. The GPL people get the benefit of having the BSD base from which to start. It's a decent compromise I think. It wouldn't hurt for the GPL people to allow the BSD people to relicense the odd few lines here or there, on request mind you, as a sign of goodwill between the two communities. This is problematic for the GPL camp, though, because once it's BSD, closed-source people just say, "I don't have to provide source. It's not GPL. It's BSD."
If that's not at all acceptable, then the BSD and GPL should be declared incompatible by fiat, and the GPL people should write their code from scratch.
One other thing that might work is if code could be licensed as, "GPL, but with exemption to allow use in BSD-licensed projects under the terms of the GPL. You can use this code in an open-source BSD-licensed project so long as you separate it out and reimplement its functionality if closing the source to the BSD project." Again, that'd be great, but how do you enforce that?
BSD allows people to put their code into commercial, proprietary, closed-source applications and to charge the original authors money for the right to use that software. How is taking something that can be used that way and putting it under the GPL instead of under Microsoft's EULA against the license?
As far as I can tell, as long as the copyright notices and attributions are all intact, you're honoring the BSD license. The GPL people are at least letting BSD people use the code improvements as GPL, whereas closed-source people are pillaging it wholesale and not eltting anyone else use their improvements.
Now, as for the improvements, it is probably better for the GPL people who build on BSD code to release stuff dual BSD/GPL. That does kind of defeat the protections of the GPL, but further improvements from that point could go either way. That would give at least one generation of improvements back to the BSD folks.
Better yet, it'd be great to have a GPL option that allows people to relicense to BSD but not straight to closed-source code. If you don't use the option, it can't happen. If you do allow for the option, it can happen, but someone actually has to release something with their improvements as BSD before it can be taken from there into closed-source stuff. That would allow at least one generation of improvements back to both the BSD and GPL folks. It'd be an enforcement nightmare even compared to what exists now, though.
Really powerful, flexible software projects of a large enough size have so many options and edge cases that companies have full-time technical writers for particular product lines. If someone's writing the docs full time, are you going to hire someone full-time to read them, or call support?
7Zip is better, but it's not as well known. Most everyone I've met that can turn a PC on has heard of WinZip. When they hear a recommendation for 7Zip and try it, most of them do stop using unregistered WinZip.
Here's hoping some interface tech comes about to make use of such large external drives. Like, oh, 40Gb Ethernet (or even 10), Infiniband, Myrinet, etc.
So a liberally biased newsrag reports on a study in which typing more accurately supposedly equates to a better understanding of the world in general? And this is news? Maybe it just means liberals should all be in the typing pool taking notes for conservatives. Maybe it means the self-described conservatives were more likely to daydream, or to think, "gee, this is a silly little exercise to study". Maybe it means liberals pay more attention to visual differences (maybe even like skin color, height, weight, age, etc).
I'm at a loss to follow how even if they prove that liberalism vs. conservatism is tied to visual acuity and fine motor skills that they go on to tie that to religion, politics, and social beliefs.
How do you know 'crocs' is short for 'crocodiles' there, which alligators are not? Could it be short for 'crocodilians', which crocodiles, alligators, caimans, gharials, and false gharials are?
It seems you have made an assumption and have been bitten by taking ambiguous wording to have a specific meaning the person using it may not have intended. If you respond that "everyone knows" that "crocs" means "crocodiles" and that "noone ever" uses it to mean "crocodilians", you probably now need to provide a citation to be taken seriously. For this to be part of your argument without citation, I think you needed to state such before the counterargument was made.
The ritual here at/. is that if you're going to delve into pedantry that you must get it right. Now that I'm pedantically correcting a pedant, there's a good chance someone will reply in kind to this post for any shortcomings herein. What better example could be set than that, though, of how this works?
YHAP. YHL. HAND. (You Have Attempted Pedantry. You Have Lost. Have ANice Day.)
BTW, I have mod points, but writing this post was more fun than modding any of the replies for this story.
That would actually be a smart way to handle it. Lots of apps write only to a single master (or its fallback) and read only from the slaves already. If you had a row-based master for fast writes and replicated to column-based slaves that could be a real win.
RLE on the data columns is a pretty big win for column-based stores, too. If the slaves manage RLE during a replication, you could have one hell of a DB farm.
Well, I guess all those guys using the net over TCP/IP back in the 80's don't count. Hell, POP2 had its RFC in 1985. POP had an RFC in 1984. SMTP and email addresses were before that.
"Early days of widespread consumer Internet access" would be the 1990s, sure.
Red Square is located just outside the Kremlin, along it's Eastern wall. In the late 15th Century, people came to this square, called Torg or Market Square, to purchase food, livestock, or other wares. By the late 16th Century, it was renamed Trinity Square, and served as the main entrance to the Kremlin. It got the name Krasnaya Ploschad (Red Square) in 17th Century. In this sense Krasnaya (Red) means beautiful. The Pokrovsky (St. Basil's the Blessed) Cathedral, the Lenin's Mausoleum and the State History Museum are located on Red Square.
Photo tour of Moscow, in which the phrase "Red Square (meaning beautiful square in Russian)" is written.
Another tourist of Moscow reports, "Our first stop is St Basil's Cathedral at the end of Red Square. In Russian, it is Krasne square meaning red or beautiful."
Russian traditional costume seller says, "The word "krasnoye" meaning "red" became identified in the people's minds with "prekrasno-ye" meaning "beautiful". Moscow's most beautiful central square is called "Krasnaya Ploshchad" (Red Square)."
You may notice that Red Square isn't really red...it is paved with black and grey stones. In the Russian language, "Krasny"("red") also meant "beautiful", so "Krasnaya Ploschad" can also be translated as "Beautiful Square". The translation "Red Square" which is now used, was established in the 20th century.
Coal mines have air tanks, respirators or at least filter masks, and more these days. The biggest dangers in underground coal mines are fire, explosion, and collapse. Miners tend to get paid a bit more than $4 an hour, too. Strip mining of coal is a lot less dangerous than underground mines, with equipment rollover being one of the worst safety hazards. It can cause quite a bit of ecological damage despite the fact that most open mines get filled back in after the mine ceases production, so that's a minus.
One thing that differentiates restaurant work from coal mining is the essentials of the job. Coal mining essentially deals with coal. Serving tables essentially deals with food and drink. It's the coal that releases coal dust, but the food and drink isn't smoking the cigarettes.
Since/. seems to love car analogies, look at auto racing. If a driver crashes, or several drivers crash, that's unfortunate. If one driver or team intentionally forces a crash or drives an unsafe car around the track despite being flagged out of the race, that's punishable. It's the same racing league and the same track either way, and accidental crashes can be just as deadly. It's the act of intentionally subjecting people to additional danger that's found unacceptable.
I never said, "Right now, in every Russian city, the modern Russian language works like this:". I was writing a post about the early development of language, and Russian is a quite old language. Sorry the context wasn't clear, but you're reading more into it than is there.
It is true in the earlier Russian of which I was speaking. Sorry I didn't make that clear enough. It's not true in modern Russian. I guess I missed the 'd' on 'translated'.
Considering the whole post was about early development of language, I'm surprised there's such a fuss over this. Fine, though, read "translate" as "once translated". There, fixed.
I believe that language evolves to describe life, and that in many primitive cultures the needs are similar. Therefore, it's understandable that early languages develop some basic vocabulary around roughly similar basic ideas at around the same rate. The Inuit wouldn't have so many words for snow if they lived in the tropics. Yes, environment has much to do with language.
"Red" and "beautiful" translate to the same word in Russian. Hence "red square". I would imagine then that red is pretty popular there, too.
In anthropological etymology, it's common for the first two words for color in a language to represent warmer colors (reddish) and cooler colors (bluish or greenish, although which one of these comes first is split somewhat). They often appear just after the words for shades of light (light/dark). As a language evolves to have more vocabulary, it's typical that finer distinctions are made among colors and more words are added to represent them. Some languages today still share a name for blue and green, while others have two names for two different sections of blues.
There are also psycho-linguistic differences as well. Russians can visually discriminate lighter blues from darker ones more quickly if they happen to fall across the divide for those two categories that is provided by their language. English speakers, having a word for blue and words for many shades of blue, but no distinct separate single-word categories for lighter blue vs. darker blue, were used as a control group. Another such experiment is between Tarahumara and English.
It's possible the color words which are perceived differently by a particular race or which made the most difference to survival (think poisonous plants and animals vs. food sources) for people at the time and place of the language's early development lead to different color words coming about in different orders. It's being studied now whether the words and the groupings the words represent themselves limit and enhance color perception ability.
Heck, in the book of Revelations in the Bible, Death rides a green horse in the original Greek. It's a black horse in most English translations. Why? Well, the "black death" plague and black being a symbol of death mean that's fitting symbolism in modern English. At the time, though, there wasn't embalming, and as this list of Bible translation corrections says, green's the color a dead body turns, just like any rotting meat. The symbolism is completely different, though, when green from the leaves of plants is considered the color of life.
So there's a lot more to thoughts about color than gender. People's eyesight is involved, the colors in nature in different parts of the world, the language those people speak, the literature and symbols they know, and personal preference all figure in. Even if gender does play a role (other than through a societal reenforcement of perceived norms), it must be in conjunction with all of these other influences.
The guy says they're charging him to use his own paper in a book or elsewhere. That's not right -- that's what they are charging the public. He can use it as he sees fit, because it's his paper.
That is, of course, unless he signed his rights away to someone lots of publication agreements state that the publisher has first rights for X number of years in a few media types. Did he release it and they picked it up, or did he submit it and try to attach a license to the submission? His blog entry doesn't really make that clear without more reading through more links.
Intel isn't doing it inexpensively. This is supposed to be a dirt-cheap way to get to 60nm.
How many chips are in your home? How many of them are general purpose CPUs? Your video card, unless it's really recent, is almost surely not down to 60nm. Your drive electronics, Ethernet controllers, PDA CPU, cable/DSL terminal, router, firewall, car, coffee pot, TV tuner, DVD player, digital camera (except maybe the image sensor), appliance timers, remote control, home theater receiver, and pocket calculator are not using Xeons.
If this could make 60nm even nearly as cheap as the 130nm lithography process, we'll have a huge jump in the amount of processing power on this planet. That's because lots of the stuff we use these days is still 180nm, 130nm, or 90nm.
So many people on/. seem to be the type to turn down a Corvette for free because it's not a Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Bugatti, or Koenigsegg. I can assure you that if someone offers me a Miata, Corvette, Z3, RX-8, C230, or Viper for the price of a Silverado pickup, I'm not going to bitch and moan that there are faster cars out there for $300,000 and up.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, make sure to stick to just numbers, because "Cairo", "Windows XP Home SP2", "Longhorn", "Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs", "Windows Vista Business x64 SP1" and "Windows Server 2008" are really hard to remember and keep straight compared to "NT 5.1.xxxx" and "NT 6.0.xxxx" for most consumers. ;-)
If you contend that "Ubuntu 7.10, Gutsy Gibbon" is any more silly than "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition", "Windows Vista Home Premium", or "Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005" I'd have to disagree.
The very fact that Microsoft calls 2000 brand new, then XP brand new, then Vista brand new, and keeps a 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.1+, 6.0 numbering scheme that it tells the average consumer nothing about is very revealing, IMO. They're in the identity management game with NT. It's all new versions of NT, but the names differentiate them for customers. Sure, the new versions sometimes do include lots of improvements. I'm not arguing that Vista is just NT 4 with Aero. It's still clearly not a written-from-scratch OS like the name suggests. Even their own version numbers say otherwise.
Interestingly enough, Darl McBride and Co. have killed one of the top ten closed-source Unix vendors, strengthened the Linux market, and helped bring about major improvements in how Open Source people document their code contributions. If his goal was destroying Open Source in favor of Closed Source, he achieved pretty much the opposite.
Sun, IBM, HP, and Apple (who all sell Unix on Intel-powered hardware (although HP's Intel hardware of choice is Itanium)) are likely not at all upset that SCO is no longer going to be trying to bill themselves as the premier Intel-compatible Unix. All of these companies of course also sell or have sold Unix on other hardware (Sparc, Power, PA-RISC, Alpha, PowerPC, Motorola 68k to name a few). Sun and IBM are two fairly strong supporters of Linux, too, although they both tout their proprietary Unix platforms as well. HP has business relationships and/or offers support for Red Hat, Oracle, Novell's Suse, Red Flag, Mandriva, and Debian.
SGI used to have IRIX, but they are phasing it out in favor of Linux (but Windows still survives on some SGI lines). SGI, being the class act it is, offers support for existing IRIX customers until at least 2013 (or the company's long-rumored folding, whichever comes first -- they actually came back from Chapter 11). RHEL and SLES are both available, supported options on Altix. SLES seems to be preferred.
It appears most of the closed-source Unix companies know the value Linux can offer. If they're not moving from closed-source solutions to Linux, then they're making it clear that Linux is an option. It's interesting that many of the companies willing to go in big for Linux sell something besides operating systems. Hardware, databases, visualization software, and directory software seem like good compliments to an OS, and vendors selling those items are just who is embracing Linux. Even Apple, who hasn't done much to embrace Linux, isn't adversarial to it. Parallels (third-party, of course) and Boot Camp (Apple) both can give access to any of the x86 or x86-64 Linux distros on the newer Macs, while PowerPC Macs dual-boot with Linux just fine.
What happens if I maintain a short position in a stock that is delisted and declares bankruptcy? says you have pure profit, basically.
I'm guessing you know about covering dividends, one-time special payments, and the like to the long holder. Short selling is fraught with danger, but boy can't it be handy?
Of course, that doesn't mean he doesn't have fair use rights to show what they said about a work he originally made. My guess is that since this guy made a Star Wars parody for a political campaign, he might understand at least a bit about his rights of fair use even if he overlooked YouTube's one-sided use policy.
From YouTube's Terms of Service, Section 6 paragraph B:
One problem is that the changes should be able to be licensed under the GPL, but how do you license only part of the source differently?
Perhaps the best thing is to keep those parts that came in as BSD licensed as BSD, and the modifications to those as BSD, but t include the BSD code alongside GPLed code, but on a file-by-file basis? Then, though, you run into real "derivative work" issues when you link them together.
Perhaps the most equitable fix is to stop sharing code between GPL and BSD projects. That's fair, but it's not particularly helpful to either side.
The issue is that there are two different freedoms at stake, and the two camps keep talking past one another because they are each favoring their own type of freedom. The BSD people think you, as a developer, should have the right to do with the code what you want (as long as you meet the attributions and such). The GPL people think that the people to whom you, the developer, distribute the code should have the rights to do whatever they want with the code (except for distributing it without source or taking those same rights away from the people to whom they redistribute it).
So it's not that the BSD people will have to write something inferior to the GPL version if a BSD project egts improved upon as GPL. It's just that they don't get the advantage of the GPLed source to do it. It's the same tradeoff they make in allowing closed-source BSD derivatives.
Personally, I'm a proponent of both licenses. I think each is great for its own focus.
The polite thing to do for a GPL person to do when they want to GPL some BSD code and improvments to it is to:
That way, the BSD project benefits from the improvements made in that round, which is more than if it was taken closed-source. The GPL people get the benefit of having the BSD base from which to start. It's a decent compromise I think. It wouldn't hurt for the GPL people to allow the BSD people to relicense the odd few lines here or there, on request mind you, as a sign of goodwill between the two communities. This is problematic for the GPL camp, though, because once it's BSD, closed-source people just say, "I don't have to provide source. It's not GPL. It's BSD."
If that's not at all acceptable, then the BSD and GPL should be declared incompatible by fiat, and the GPL people should write their code from scratch.
One other thing that might work is if code could be licensed as, "GPL, but with exemption to allow use in BSD-licensed projects under the terms of the GPL. You can use this code in an open-source BSD-licensed project so long as you separate it out and reimplement its functionality if closing the source to the BSD project." Again, that'd be great, but how do you enforce that?
BSD allows people to put their code into commercial, proprietary, closed-source applications and to charge the original authors money for the right to use that software. How is taking something that can be used that way and putting it under the GPL instead of under Microsoft's EULA against the license?
As far as I can tell, as long as the copyright notices and attributions are all intact, you're honoring the BSD license. The GPL people are at least letting BSD people use the code improvements as GPL, whereas closed-source people are pillaging it wholesale and not eltting anyone else use their improvements.
Now, as for the improvements, it is probably better for the GPL people who build on BSD code to release stuff dual BSD/GPL. That does kind of defeat the protections of the GPL, but further improvements from that point could go either way. That would give at least one generation of improvements back to the BSD folks.
Better yet, it'd be great to have a GPL option that allows people to relicense to BSD but not straight to closed-source code. If you don't use the option, it can't happen. If you do allow for the option, it can happen, but someone actually has to release something with their improvements as BSD before it can be taken from there into closed-source stuff. That would allow at least one generation of improvements back to both the BSD and GPL folks. It'd be an enforcement nightmare even compared to what exists now, though.
Really powerful, flexible software projects of a large enough size have so many options and edge cases that companies have full-time technical writers for particular product lines. If someone's writing the docs full time, are you going to hire someone full-time to read them, or call support?
7Zip is better, but it's not as well known. Most everyone I've met that can turn a PC on has heard of WinZip. When they hear a recommendation for 7Zip and try it, most of them do stop using unregistered WinZip.
Here's hoping some interface tech comes about to make use of such large external drives. Like, oh, 40Gb Ethernet (or even 10), Infiniband, Myrinet, etc.
So a liberally biased newsrag reports on a study in which typing more accurately supposedly equates to a better understanding of the world in general? And this is news? Maybe it just means liberals should all be in the typing pool taking notes for conservatives. Maybe it means the self-described conservatives were more likely to daydream, or to think, "gee, this is a silly little exercise to study". Maybe it means liberals pay more attention to visual differences (maybe even like skin color, height, weight, age, etc).
I'm at a loss to follow how even if they prove that liberalism vs. conservatism is tied to visual acuity and fine motor skills that they go on to tie that to religion, politics, and social beliefs.
Nah. All you proved is that career politicians are devoid of information, and you can't transmit the static they produce in any meaningful way.
Wikipedia says the original VNC was released GPL.
TightVNC, x11vnc, and UltraVNC are GPL as well.
How do you know 'crocs' is short for 'crocodiles' there, which alligators are not? Could it be short for 'crocodilians', which crocodiles, alligators, caimans, gharials, and false gharials are?
/. is that if you're going to delve into pedantry that you must get it right. Now that I'm pedantically correcting a pedant, there's a good chance someone will reply in kind to this post for any shortcomings herein. What better example could be set than that, though, of how this works?
It seems you have made an assumption and have been bitten by taking ambiguous wording to have a specific meaning the person using it may not have intended. If you respond that "everyone knows" that "crocs" means "crocodiles" and that "noone ever" uses it to mean "crocodilians", you probably now need to provide a citation to be taken seriously. For this to be part of your argument without citation, I think you needed to state such before the counterargument was made.
The ritual here at
YHAP. YHL. HAND. (You Have Attempted Pedantry. You Have Lost. Have A Nice Day.)
BTW, I have mod points, but writing this post was more fun than modding any of the replies for this story.
That would actually be a smart way to handle it. Lots of apps write only to a single master (or its fallback) and read only from the slaves already. If you had a row-based master for fast writes and replicated to column-based slaves that could be a real win.
RLE on the data columns is a pretty big win for column-based stores, too. If the slaves manage RLE during a replication, you could have one hell of a DB farm.
Well, I guess all those guys using the net over TCP/IP back in the 80's don't count. Hell, POP2 had its RFC in 1985. POP had an RFC in 1984. SMTP and email addresses were before that.
"Early days of widespread consumer Internet access" would be the 1990s, sure.
Wikipedia: Red Square, Origin and Name, which says it means both "red" and "beautiful" although the latter is an archaic meaning of the word.
says specifically that "krasny" has lost the meaning "beautiful" over time and the meanign has been applied to red only
Diary of a Russian Wife: Colors in Russian
Moscow Life states the word means "beautiful" in Old Russian and only took on the exclusive meaning "red" in modern times.
The synopsis for the book "Red in Russian Art" tells us that in earlier Russian, the two words carry the same meaning, and that red is still understood to symbolize beauty.
NY Times travel section
This page states that recently as the fifteenth century "red" and "beautiful" were always both exactly the same word. It has its own list of references, too.
This Russian site states specifically:
Hotel-Rates.com page for Maxima Irbis hotel in Moscow
This sites for a bell foundry in Russia states "Krasny" means "red", and "red" means "beautiful".
Photo tour of Moscow, in which the phrase "Red Square (meaning beautiful square in Russian)" is written.
Another tourist of Moscow reports, "Our first stop is St Basil's Cathedral at the end of Red Square. In Russian, it is Krasne square meaning red or beautiful."
Russian traditional costume seller says, "The word "krasnoye" meaning "red" became identified in the people's minds with "prekrasno-ye" meaning "beautiful". Moscow's most beautiful central square is called "Krasnaya Ploshchad" (Red Square)."
talks about the modern link that still exists between "red" and "beauty"
Eduard Shevardnadze relays to the US State Department Chief of Protocol that krasny can mean "beautiful" as well as "red" -- in 1987.
Russia
Coal mines have air tanks, respirators or at least filter masks, and more these days. The biggest dangers in underground coal mines are fire, explosion, and collapse. Miners tend to get paid a bit more than $4 an hour, too. Strip mining of coal is a lot less dangerous than underground mines, with equipment rollover being one of the worst safety hazards. It can cause quite a bit of ecological damage despite the fact that most open mines get filled back in after the mine ceases production, so that's a minus.
/. seems to love car analogies, look at auto racing. If a driver crashes, or several drivers crash, that's unfortunate. If one driver or team intentionally forces a crash or drives an unsafe car around the track despite being flagged out of the race, that's punishable. It's the same racing league and the same track either way, and accidental crashes can be just as deadly. It's the act of intentionally subjecting people to additional danger that's found unacceptable.
One thing that differentiates restaurant work from coal mining is the essentials of the job. Coal mining essentially deals with coal. Serving tables essentially deals with food and drink. It's the coal that releases coal dust, but the food and drink isn't smoking the cigarettes.
Since
I never said, "Right now, in every Russian city, the modern Russian language works like this:". I was writing a post about the early development of language, and Russian is a quite old language. Sorry the context wasn't clear, but you're reading more into it than is there.
It is true in the earlier Russian of which I was speaking. Sorry I didn't make that clear enough. It's not true in modern Russian. I guess I missed the 'd' on 'translated'.
Considering the whole post was about early development of language, I'm surprised there's such a fuss over this. Fine, though, read "translate" as "once translated". There, fixed.
I believe that language evolves to describe life, and that in many primitive cultures the needs are similar. Therefore, it's understandable that early languages develop some basic vocabulary around roughly similar basic ideas at around the same rate. The Inuit wouldn't have so many words for snow if they lived in the tropics. Yes, environment has much to do with language.
"Red" and "beautiful" translate to the same word in Russian. Hence "red square". I would imagine then that red is pretty popular there, too.
In anthropological etymology, it's common for the first two words for color in a language to represent warmer colors (reddish) and cooler colors (bluish or greenish, although which one of these comes first is split somewhat). They often appear just after the words for shades of light (light/dark). As a language evolves to have more vocabulary, it's typical that finer distinctions are made among colors and more words are added to represent them. Some languages today still share a name for blue and green, while others have two names for two different sections of blues.
There are also psycho-linguistic differences as well. Russians can visually discriminate lighter blues from darker ones more quickly if they happen to fall across the divide for those two categories that is provided by their language. English speakers, having a word for blue and words for many shades of blue, but no distinct separate single-word categories for lighter blue vs. darker blue, were used as a control group. Another such experiment is between Tarahumara and English.
It's possible the color words which are perceived differently by a particular race or which made the most difference to survival (think poisonous plants and animals vs. food sources) for people at the time and place of the language's early development lead to different color words coming about in different orders. It's being studied now whether the words and the groupings the words represent themselves limit and enhance color perception ability.
Heck, in the book of Revelations in the Bible, Death rides a green horse in the original Greek. It's a black horse in most English translations. Why? Well, the "black death" plague and black being a symbol of death mean that's fitting symbolism in modern English. At the time, though, there wasn't embalming, and as this list of Bible translation corrections says, green's the color a dead body turns, just like any rotting meat. The symbolism is completely different, though, when green from the leaves of plants is considered the color of life.
So there's a lot more to thoughts about color than gender. People's eyesight is involved, the colors in nature in different parts of the world, the language those people speak, the literature and symbols they know, and personal preference all figure in. Even if gender does play a role (other than through a societal reenforcement of perceived norms), it must be in conjunction with all of these other influences.
The guy says they're charging him to use his own paper in a book or elsewhere. That's not right -- that's what they are charging the public. He can use it as he sees fit, because it's his paper.
That is, of course, unless he signed his rights away to someone lots of publication agreements state that the publisher has first rights for X number of years in a few media types. Did he release it and they picked it up, or did he submit it and try to attach a license to the submission? His blog entry doesn't really make that clear without more reading through more links.
Intel isn't doing it inexpensively. This is supposed to be a dirt-cheap way to get to 60nm.
/. seem to be the type to turn down a Corvette for free because it's not a Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Bugatti, or Koenigsegg. I can assure you that if someone offers me a Miata, Corvette, Z3, RX-8, C230, or Viper for the price of a Silverado pickup, I'm not going to bitch and moan that there are faster cars out there for $300,000 and up.
How many chips are in your home? How many of them are general purpose CPUs? Your video card, unless it's really recent, is almost surely not down to 60nm. Your drive electronics, Ethernet controllers, PDA CPU, cable/DSL terminal, router, firewall, car, coffee pot, TV tuner, DVD player, digital camera (except maybe the image sensor), appliance timers, remote control, home theater receiver, and pocket calculator are not using Xeons.
If this could make 60nm even nearly as cheap as the 130nm lithography process, we'll have a huge jump in the amount of processing power on this planet. That's because lots of the stuff we use these days is still 180nm, 130nm, or 90nm.
So many people on