He was denied his fifth amendment rights. You don't think that is wrong?
Just a stupid question, but why couldn't he have just said the usual "I exercise my right under the 5th amendment to not incriminate myself." and stopped responding? Just a question. I mean he just perjured himself to cover his butt on a little thing. It's not like we should think he'd have done the same if his butt was really on the line? He was the president. We should cut him some ethical slack, right?
Ya. We were talking about net neutrality at the barber shop last Saturday morning. We're still pretty much half and half, but once we come to a concensus I'll make sure to post it on Slashdot.
... this so rocks! No really. I never knew I was so powerful! I mean, really! Veto power! I've got to talk to the Pastor and see what other perks I've missed out on. I wonder if I can kick the RIAA of the internet. Ya think? This is just too cool. Way better that the Auto Club!
They aren't evil for wanting to work on OpenBSD, but I'm not evil for not caring to pay for it. I don't wish for OpenBSD to die and if it is going to exist I'd like for it to have compatible support for ssh and any other protocol, but OpenBSD isn't a tool that I need. Let those who would use it pay for it.
I liken it to the UnitedWay drive at work. Some people like to give to charities as long as they get to pick which charities. They aren't evil for it. For me, it's the same way with non-profit Open Source and Free Software. I don't want to throw money at projects that I don't see a need for in the future. Those who do see a need for those projects can fund them. I'll fund the ones I believe in.
OpenSSH is worth while to me. But OpenBSD is not. If people want to pay someone to write code for OpenBSD, good for them. I'll be happy for them. If not, too bad. Work on it for the love or work on something that others are willing to fund. I wouldn't feel any worse for the OpenBSD developers than I would for a musician who's work I don't care for.
Rather than try to wave around OpenSSH as a poster child to get money for the OS, they might want to consider why they aren't getting enough money from their millions of users and why they aren't getting charity from those who aren't users. I know I have my reasons why I'd consider giving to some of the OS distributions that I don't use but not others. I won't go into why since noone is asking and my lone opinion of OpenBSD's value isn't the issue.
Simply put, there is competition in the Open Source world. It doesn't need to be bitter, but it is there and it is good. The OpenBSD need to evaluate the world around them and adapt.
Well, you got me there. Standard C++ could be better in this regard. We do have to use some special compiler features to deal with architecure registers and we use assembler too. On the other hand, C++ is every bit as good as C when it comes to systems programming and C+ASM does seem to be a bit of a standard as far as systems programming languages go. C++ adds better support for abstraction and can do some axtra work for you w/ destructors, compiler managed VFTs and type safety (if you use it right).
Still the pack pramga, builtin offsetof() extention and my knowledge of how our compiler lays out structs and bit fields have been more meaningful than the standard seems to care to admit. We needed the full array of [u]int{8|16|32|64} types before anyone was nice enough to standardize a thing and now we don't match the C99 standard. Now it's not in the standard but endian-isms just hasn't been a problem as far as I've seen. The network code would probably be the only high perf code that would need it, but our machine matches network endian-ness, so it no big deal.
Now we do have the special stacks and runtime environments (calling conventions, exception/interupt capabilities, addressability, etc.) for different layers of code and it is all very accessable from the C++ code, but some is not implemented in it. The same is true with the memory addressing support. We have wrapped it all with object interfaces though. I don't think you could standardize what we have done without putting restrictions on the processor design. I would have liked it if we'd have used the inline assembler just to let the compiler do a little more work for us, but it probably wouldn't buy us much in the way of recurring cost.
So ya, standard C++ doesn't do bare metal as perfectly as say, assembler. But is assembler standardized anywhere near as much as C or C++? Does any such standard mention how ALL the registers in ANY archetecture are the accessed? The MMU? FPU? NUMA? All the cache strategies that any given processor may support? Is the a language that does? We where able to at least hide all of this under a pretty high level interface.
Now the world for games is OpenGL, SDL and other libraries. I don't have much real game experience. My knowledge came from the days when you had to have your own driver for every sound card, video card and any other device under the sun while making up for the fact that DOS and (early) windows just wasn't much of an OS. I didn't want to program for hardware at all because of that.
Boy, there is a lot to answer here. Let start with you complaints about the suggested features.
the using declaration for making type aliases: OK. I don't think you can do typedef Foo<int, Y> Bar; in C++. It looks like that's what this is for. I've needed it and I've seen library developers lust for it.
sequence constructors: Personally, I'd kill for this. To be able to have a constructor and still be able to have aggrigate initialization. I have tons of code that depends on tables that are generated at configuration time before compilation. If the table is in a vector, I currenting have to generate a function that calls 'pushback()' instead of just spitting out array of entries. As far as I'm concerned, this is just one of the many places where we should be allowed to use a literal value, but can't.
template concepts: I've want this for a long time. I'm glad it's possible, but given the number of problems getting template right the first time around and the number of corner case that have been hit with them, I don't think it's as easy as you make it sound. C++ isn't as clean as Haskell in this regard it it will be another feature that the implementor will probably screw up a bunch before all the bugs are worked out in the standard.
type deduction using the auto keyword: Again, I've want this for a long time and there have been compile that had something like this as an extention. But I think it will be a little while until all the corner cases are defined.
Now, moving on to the gripes.
No garbage collection: I gotta agree. This would be nice and I though BS said it wold probably be added as an option. If they add it well that will be cool. If they don't add GC or if they make it a default or something, well that will be nasty.
the bias towards systems programming: If you don't want a systems's programming language, use Java. Please. I am a systems programmer use C++ in a big ol' kernel for a big ol' propriatary OS. Simply put, you are wrong here. Period. Furthermore, systems programming is more than kernel development. Games a performance critical applications often time use 'systems programming'.
the lack of import declarations: Well, I do hate maintain separate headers and code. But I love having a header separate from the code. If the compiler could generate a human readable interface file (aka header) from the implementation, then I'm cool with it. Of course that would require documentation hints in the implementation to make the header readable...which could lead to another gripe:-)
no static virtual methods: Well, being that virual function implies the use of a VFT and static implies a lack of object which further implies a lack of VFT, I'm a little confused by what are suggesting as a solution. Still better factory support would be nice.
no properties I haven't really used properties, so I don't really have anything against them. If you just mean something to allow you to declare a private/protect variable and implicitly getting setters and getters, I'm cool with that. If you mean something where you create a set and get method to be used as a public psuedo data member, then I start to get scared. Hidden side effect don't bug me. They just have to be done wisely, as always. It's the interaction with the rest of that language that assume a variable is a variable and that you can get the address, reference it, as so forth. C++ already allows complete access to public data member and anything that looks the same and behaves differently create a bunch of new corner cases to be defined and dealt with. It can be done, but I don't feel it is worth the churn. You can get pretty much the same thing with a reusable template prop<typename T, getFunc<T> = get<T>, setFunc<t> = set<t>>
Though the bar is a bit lower for civil suits, to my knowledge, I don't think anyone has ever been given a death sentence as a part of a civil suit. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that isn't even an option. Criminal cases have somewhat higher requirements for evidence and proof.
Universal support for the death penalty? Ya. Right. We got that one worked out just after we got universal concensus about abortion. By the way? Where do you get your news?
The Corperations are powerful because they have money. At least the powerful ones have money. Lots of it. They can translate that into power. That's nothing new and I don't think America pioneered that one. We (the people) aren't crazy-in-love with it either.
By the way, who is calling to hang the guy? My mod settings must be filtering out those comments.
Actually, I think it's worse than that. Perl6 is adding unicode support in perl source. So you think they'd be able to add support for all sorts of new operator. But from what I can tell from the mailing lists they are just over loading the hell out of the question mark.
Well, normally, I'd hold out, but since it's you, I guess I'll believe it.:-)
Seriously though I think we are just seeing what could be a little bit of finess. Where with the RIAA, we would be ready to see a executive level tantrum follow such a situation, the MPAA has a tendency to be much more subtle about what they do. I'm not sure if it the people involve or that fact that modern bandwidth and storage capacities are a more immediate threat to the RIAA where as the MPAA still has some time to act before the average machine can hold hundreds of movies and the average network connection can transfer a movie in under 5 minutes.
Needless to say, I don't believe they are giving either. They are just trying to get this back under the table "where it belongs".
I don't moan about debian's stable much anymore, because I kicked the habit. But I'll moan a little for you. If debian isn't a desktop distro, then drop the packages already. Honestly. It's a lame sounding excuse to include a million odd desktop oriented packages and then claim it ain't ment the desktop.
Second, I did as you said, running unstable. I lived to regret it. I've heard the claims that debian's unstable is more stable than most distro's stable releases. I think I've even uttered such nonsense in my early linux years. However it only took one spectactular crash to cure me of that. In all my time using computers (including though hazy microsoft years in to distant past) I have only had one software failure that took every thing out. In the past, I have even gone so far as to scan a disk for partion headers using a sector editor so I could rebuild a partition table and several filesystem headers by hand to keep from losing data.
The one crash I didn't recover a single thing from was a pre-woody unstable. In exchange for being current enough on packages to be able to interoperate with the rest of the (still small) linux world, I had gone with debian's unstable. They tweaked something major, but I can't remember what. I never found out specificly what killed me, only that I wasn't the only one. After weeks of not being able to recover data and being reminded by the debian folks that "it's called UNSTABLE for a reason", I vowed off UNSTABLE and was pretty much incompatible with all the folks I knew on more up-to-date distros. I continued to use the same hardware when I switch back the the then stable release and continued to use it whan I switch to MDK. I never had problems with the machine except that it eventual wasn't fast enough to run games once I began to take intrest in the growing market for real games.
So, I guess I'd say that if it isn't a desktop system, then dump the desktop packages and lighten the testing and maintenance load. If there is a desktop element to the system, then realize that the desktop moves faster than debian currently does and that bragging about stability of your Mosiac, vtwm and egcs install really isn't a useful. Don't, absolutely DO NOT suggest unstable if you plan to dump the user to the curb should it turn out to be unstable, as the name would suggest.
To be honest, I finally gave up on debian when they started spending more visible time on arguing over which ballot system will shape an election to get non-free as far away from the main debian repository as possible. They got to be more about politics than about good software. Begin ages behind even in package like xfig, transfig, lyx and g++ while hearing about the great work on vrms so I could have my system berate me for using non-free packages like netscape, xanim and xv for which there was no (reasonable) available alternative (at the time) was the camel that broke my straw back. It wasn't useful. I can't do my work if the tools aren't there and my work wasn't to replace all the tools that weren't there.
Debian had some features that I still miss and have yet to find any replacement for (like dselect (I'm serious, the easy, guided control over conflict/dependency management has never been matched (I'm a control freak about what goes on my box))) and I did genuinely like the effort to include free alternatives to non-free packages when they existed and has reach a state where they might be of some use to someone. But at this point, I couldn't take the down grade in virtually every piece of software I use just to go back. And I'm not being bitten again by unstable. I was gone before testing had been implemented, but it sounds like it has been a joke. Desktop or not, debian need to make up it's mind and plan accordingly. In either case, something has been broken for a long time and don't pretend it's not.
Your "Apps are apps and OS is OS" blurb has an automotive equivalent,
I might question that, but I'll wait.
and I can tell you that the highest level of motorsport engineering would beg to differ with you.
They may do so.
Quite practically every F1 team engineers their car as to where the motor is a stressed member. Yes Virginia, an F1 motor is not simply a motor (as you would want it), it is part of the suspension. It seems that F1 teams have this funny need that each part do more than it's primary job. Why? To gain maximum performance.
So, when it come to making and OS, Microsoft makes a great race car? An F1 is a fine tune car for a particular class of race. I doubt those things are even street legal in most cities. Windows on the other hand ain't exactly the Earth simulator. It's a general purpose OS that is riddled with either bad engineering decissions or anti-competive design choices. Probably a good bit of both. If they were really going for the F1 analogy you are giving, it would be coded in hand written assembler and they'd even have different versions for different processor classes in the same family like the L4 microkernel. (On 486, you'd want to use the segment registers for implementing address spaces. On pentium, you'd use the HPT because it has better performance.)
What Microsoft is doing is coding at F1 levels. Maybe this concept is too hard for you to understand, then again, perhaps a more pedestrian OS such as Linux would be more your taste.
That pedestrian OS of which you speak actually is on several super computing clusters these days. I guess the maker of high performance computing platforms would beg to differ with you and your mechanics when it comes to making a fast computer, not that I'm, like, rubbin' it in, ya know.
About your other point, there is a military equivalent for Microsoft's coding. It's called 4F.
This isn't BS at all. If they want drop in compatibilty, then they have to imitate something the software already runs on. That too simple of an answer for them to have asked it.
The question is, does the opens source community have standards that they require hardware venders to comply with pertaining to registers, interface, or whatever, and the answer is pretty much no. If the specs are available and somebody uses it, it will probably be supported. If the vender produces some radically different interface for a common device, it may take a while it get seemless intgration, but if they do that, you'd hope there'd be a gain in doing it that way.
The issue is that companies like Microsoft tell them they must present certain devices with certain interfaces or MS WILL NOT support them. In the open source community, if you don't provide good documentation they will not support you. It's the only comparible requirement in the open source world.
Even if you provide a drop in replacement for another device, it may work but no body will claim to support the device as such unless you document that it is supposed to work just like the device you're imitating and that device is documented.
In the netscape days I never use the whole suite outside of the browser. I didn't even trust it. In the mozilla days, I eventually got to the point I use the browser, mail/news reader, the editor and even the irc client. With the smart email harvesting, I guess I'm even indirectly using the address book.
I'm sure Firefox is nifty, but it sound like it's not all that mature yet, and I don't want to regress, yet again. I definatly am not ready to trust thunderbird. I'm still pissed from when I experimented with a maturing balsa, just to have it mangle my mail files, hose it's indexes, and start deleting the wrong messages.
My desktop is not a toy and there are certain function that should not be in constant beta. Email is one of them. Now I have to find a way to migrate, yet again, to something stable and functional for a mail and news reader.
And yes, I know there will probably be a community project that takes over. There will be a question of migration since we already know they can't use the same name, it's safe to say the dot directory will change and probably some of the files there in. And then there is a question of how smooth the transition will be. Will the software stay stable through all the churn. Will it stagnate like the old netscape suite? Do I want to bet another mailbox on it?
If there's going to be a migration, I want to at least be sure that the there is a stable program at the other end of the migration. Right now, the suite soon to be formerly known as Mozilla is an unknown.
but where I'm at, I've been told that they are preferring people with master's and the last few people we've hired have all had master's. I'm being encouraged to pursue one on the company's nickle (which I like) but due to the age of my two very young kids, it's going to be difficult on the family. (Ya, they'd pay for it. Like I should be complaining...)
I know a guy who was fired from a place because they claimed he put up a web site to 'impersonate' them on the web. He had a page with some scans from public brochures saying "...this is were I work...". He mentioned what he did there and what he liked about the company. The company dicovered this can fired him shortly before various 10yr benefits vested.
I've seen a number of post blasting Intel for constantly ripping off Apple's innovative ideas. I guess I'd like to know, how is making a gumball of a computer that matches your eyes and complements your shoes innovation? I'm not say Intel is any less of a ripoff artist, just that is sounds more like fashion than innovation to me.
...for my new r00t kit! Now I can upload this onto a machine to easily find all the sensitive logs to swipe and wipe. I'm gunna be a l33t hax0r. Yay me! (Now I just need to wait for a story about a new vunerability. This'll be kewl.)
Which makes the Shroud unique among all ancient textiles? (If you can't properly date the Shroud, how could you date anything else? Do you think that scientists don't test their methods for reliability before using them for any work of importance?)
Actually, they dated the shroud, called it a fake, called the Church frauds and patted themselves on the back.
In a later, unrelated case they had multiple artifacts from a site that dated differently when the scientists felt it wasn't possible. Hence they further analysed their results and samples and discovered the bioplastic.
Some time after that, someone when back and realized that the sample from the shroud had enough of this bioplastic to put the age back into the range suggested by the Church's records.
Also, I'm sure scientists can be quite meticulous when they want to. In the case, they did not do a standard dating. I think they worked from a single sample where they normally would work with several different samples and do 'best 2 out of 3' sort of thing. This was not entirely their fault in this case, but there were several other irregularities in their dating of the sample in comparison to serveral other interesting traits of the shroud.
Are you saying that cellulose cannot be purified from the material? If you cannot obtain guaranteed-original material for radiocarbon dating, you can't get it for any other analysis either.
Last I heard from the discovery channel, (and this was some time ago itself) no. They were working on a way to remove the bioplastic from such samples and they were also going to have to get an other sample from the Church.
You're not making sense here. Are you telling me that
* The very people who maintain the Shroud as a holy artifact
* Who by definition believe in its authenticity
* Who have every reason to want it to be proven authentic
* Who control access to it, and
* Who only permitted research on it after a long and difficult negotiation with the scientists involved,
didn't allow anyone to have the proper things to test?
Well, they might not want to let scientist cut the thing to shreds just to verify their 2000 year old paper trail that the Church already trusts. Further more, after the somewhat smug behavior of the scientists in calling the thing a fake, follow by the virtual silence (up until now for some reason) once it was determined that the were errors in the protocol and (due to the bioplastic) method, they might not consider the scientific community as impartial as they once did regarding the shroud. They already have enough smug folks (like you might see here) pointing to finding that have be found invalid already and they trust their paper trail.
Isn't it easier just to believe that the claims of authenticity are false, and that people are clinging to it because of what they want to be true?
If that's what you want to believe, sure. You don't need scientists for that. Good luck with that. At this point, people who want to believe, do. And people who do not want to believe, (like you I presume) don't. Both sides that care will rationalize their beliefs and they have hundred of years and countless scape-goats to throw up a sufficient smoke screen of rationalization to back them up. At this point you won't prove anything to everyone without a time machine.
For me, my basic beliefs about Christ do not change, regardless of the Shroud. I have learned a bit of a painful lesson myself however, having assumed the first findings were unquestionable, as presented to my by a history teacher who I later found was aggressively out smear all religious people as fools and/or liars. This was his evidence for the 6th grade class.
This isn't a case of a guy driving the get-away car. This is a case of saying "That junkie on the corner is selling crack." Everybody (including the police) know it, but because you say it, you're the criminal?
So. Do you think anyone will point out that Chuck D. and the Beastie's were the only ones on the previous CC album that chose a license that didn't allow commercial sampling? Think the'd give 'em create here for contibuting stuff to be sampled?
Slashdot Mirror
Just a stupid question, but why couldn't he have just said the usual "I exercise my right under the 5th amendment to not incriminate myself." and stopped responding? Just a question. I mean he just perjured himself to cover his butt on a little thing. It's not like we should think he'd have done the same if his butt was really on the line? He was the president. We should cut him some ethical slack, right?
Ya. We were talking about net neutrality at the barber shop last Saturday morning. We're still pretty much half and half, but once we come to a concensus I'll make sure to post it on Slashdot.
... this so rocks! No really. I never knew I was so powerful! I mean, really! Veto power! I've got to talk to the Pastor and see what other perks I've missed out on. I wonder if I can kick the RIAA of the internet. Ya think? This is just too cool. Way better that the Auto Club!
They aren't evil for wanting to work on OpenBSD, but I'm not evil for not caring to pay for it. I don't wish for OpenBSD to die and if it is going to exist I'd like for it to have compatible support for ssh and any other protocol, but OpenBSD isn't a tool that I need. Let those who would use it pay for it.
I liken it to the UnitedWay drive at work. Some people like to give to charities as long as they get to pick which charities. They aren't evil for it. For me, it's the same way with non-profit Open Source and Free Software. I don't want to throw money at projects that I don't see a need for in the future. Those who do see a need for those projects can fund them. I'll fund the ones I believe in.
OpenSSH is worth while to me. But OpenBSD is not. If people want to pay someone to write code for OpenBSD, good for them. I'll be happy for them. If not, too bad. Work on it for the love or work on something that others are willing to fund. I wouldn't feel any worse for the OpenBSD developers than I would for a musician who's work I don't care for.
Rather than try to wave around OpenSSH as a poster child to get money for the OS, they might want to consider why they aren't getting enough money from their millions of users and why they aren't getting charity from those who aren't users. I know I have my reasons why I'd consider giving to some of the OS distributions that I don't use but not others. I won't go into why since noone is asking and my lone opinion of OpenBSD's value isn't the issue.
Simply put, there is competition in the Open Source world. It doesn't need to be bitter, but it is there and it is good. The OpenBSD need to evaluate the world around them and adapt.
Well, you got me there. Standard C++ could be better in this regard. We do have to use some special compiler features to deal with architecure registers and we use assembler too. On the other hand, C++ is every bit as good as C when it comes to systems programming and C+ASM does seem to be a bit of a standard as far as systems programming languages go. C++ adds better support for abstraction and can do some axtra work for you w/ destructors, compiler managed VFTs and type safety (if you use it right).
Still the pack pramga, builtin offsetof() extention and my knowledge of how our compiler lays out structs and bit fields have been more meaningful than the standard seems to care to admit. We needed the full array of [u]int{8|16|32|64} types before anyone was nice enough to standardize a thing and now we don't match the C99 standard. Now it's not in the standard but endian-isms just hasn't been a problem as far as I've seen. The network code would probably be the only high perf code that would need it, but our machine matches network endian-ness, so it no big deal.
Now we do have the special stacks and runtime environments (calling conventions, exception/interupt capabilities, addressability, etc.) for different layers of code and it is all very accessable from the C++ code, but some is not implemented in it. The same is true with the memory addressing support. We have wrapped it all with object interfaces though. I don't think you could standardize what we have done without putting restrictions on the processor design. I would have liked it if we'd have used the inline assembler just to let the compiler do a little more work for us, but it probably wouldn't buy us much in the way of recurring cost.
So ya, standard C++ doesn't do bare metal as perfectly as say, assembler. But is assembler standardized anywhere near as much as C or C++? Does any such standard mention how ALL the registers in ANY archetecture are the accessed? The MMU? FPU? NUMA? All the cache strategies that any given processor may support? Is the a language that does? We where able to at least hide all of this under a pretty high level interface.
Now the world for games is OpenGL, SDL and other libraries. I don't have much real game experience. My knowledge came from the days when you had to have your own driver for every sound card, video card and any other device under the sun while making up for the fact that DOS and (early) windows just wasn't much of an OS. I didn't want to program for hardware at all because of that.
Boy, there is a lot to answer here. Let start with you complaints about the suggested features.
Now, moving on to the gripes.
Though the bar is a bit lower for civil suits, to my knowledge, I don't think anyone has ever been given a death sentence as a part of a civil suit. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that isn't even an option. Criminal cases have somewhat higher requirements for evidence and proof.
Universal support for the death penalty? Ya. Right. We got that one worked out just after we got universal concensus about abortion. By the way? Where do you get your news?
The Corperations are powerful because they have money. At least the powerful ones have money. Lots of it. They can translate that into power. That's nothing new and I don't think America pioneered that one. We (the people) aren't crazy-in-love with it either.
By the way, who is calling to hang the guy? My mod settings must be filtering out those comments.
Actually, I think it's worse than that. Perl6 is adding unicode support in perl source. So you think they'd be able to add support for all sorts of new operator. But from what I can tell from the mailing lists they are just over loading the hell out of the question mark.
@list = ? 1 2 3 4 5 ?;
@list ? grep {$_ % 2}
? map {$_ ? 2}
? @newlist; # 1, 9, 25
@list3 = -? @newlist; # -1, -9, -25
@list4 = 2 *? @list3; # 1, 81, 625
@list5 = @list3 ? @list4; # -1, 1, -9, 81, -25, 625
%hash1?a? = "alpha"; # { "a" => "alpha" }
I think it's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.
Well, normally, I'd hold out, but since it's you, I guess I'll believe it. :-)
Seriously though I think we are just seeing what could be a little bit of finess. Where with the RIAA, we would be ready to see a executive level tantrum follow such a situation, the MPAA has a tendency to be much more subtle about what they do. I'm not sure if it the people involve or that fact that modern bandwidth and storage capacities are a more immediate threat to the RIAA where as the MPAA still has some time to act before the average machine can hold hundreds of movies and the average network connection can transfer a movie in under 5 minutes.
Needless to say, I don't believe they are giving either. They are just trying to get this back under the table "where it belongs".
Second, I did as you said, running unstable. I lived to regret it. I've heard the claims that debian's unstable is more stable than most distro's stable releases. I think I've even uttered such nonsense in my early linux years. However it only took one spectactular crash to cure me of that. In all my time using computers (including though hazy microsoft years in to distant past) I have only had one software failure that took every thing out. In the past, I have even gone so far as to scan a disk for partion headers using a sector editor so I could rebuild a partition table and several filesystem headers by hand to keep from losing data.
The one crash I didn't recover a single thing from was a pre-woody unstable. In exchange for being current enough on packages to be able to interoperate with the rest of the (still small) linux world, I had gone with debian's unstable. They tweaked something major, but I can't remember what. I never found out specificly what killed me, only that I wasn't the only one. After weeks of not being able to recover data and being reminded by the debian folks that "it's called UNSTABLE for a reason", I vowed off UNSTABLE and was pretty much incompatible with all the folks I knew on more up-to-date distros. I continued to use the same hardware when I switch back the the then stable release and continued to use it whan I switch to MDK. I never had problems with the machine except that it eventual wasn't fast enough to run games once I began to take intrest in the growing market for real games.
So, I guess I'd say that if it isn't a desktop system, then dump the desktop packages and lighten the testing and maintenance load. If there is a desktop element to the system, then realize that the desktop moves faster than debian currently does and that bragging about stability of your Mosiac, vtwm and egcs install really isn't a useful. Don't, absolutely DO NOT suggest unstable if you plan to dump the user to the curb should it turn out to be unstable, as the name would suggest.
To be honest, I finally gave up on debian when they started spending more visible time on arguing over which ballot system will shape an election to get non-free as far away from the main debian repository as possible. They got to be more about politics than about good software. Begin ages behind even in package like xfig, transfig, lyx and g++ while hearing about the great work on vrms so I could have my system berate me for using non-free packages like netscape, xanim and xv for which there was no (reasonable) available alternative (at the time) was the camel that broke my straw back. It wasn't useful. I can't do my work if the tools aren't there and my work wasn't to replace all the tools that weren't there.
Debian had some features that I still miss and have yet to find any replacement for (like dselect (I'm serious, the easy, guided control over conflict/dependency management has never been matched (I'm a control freak about what goes on my box))) and I did genuinely like the effort to include free alternatives to non-free packages when they existed and has reach a state where they might be of some use to someone. But at this point, I couldn't take the down grade in virtually every piece of software I use just to go back. And I'm not being bitten again by unstable. I was gone before testing had been implemented, but it sounds like it has been a joke. Desktop or not, debian need to make up it's mind and plan accordingly. In either case, something has been broken for a long time and don't pretend it's not.
Well, maybe it would have stuck better if he'd have provided a translation in code.
I might question that, but I'll wait.
They may do so.
So, when it come to making and OS, Microsoft makes a great race car? An F1 is a fine tune car for a particular class of race. I doubt those things are even street legal in most cities. Windows on the other hand ain't exactly the Earth simulator. It's a general purpose OS that is riddled with either bad engineering decissions or anti-competive design choices. Probably a good bit of both. If they were really going for the F1 analogy you are giving, it would be coded in hand written assembler and they'd even have different versions for different processor classes in the same family like the L4 microkernel. (On 486, you'd want to use the segment registers for implementing address spaces. On pentium, you'd use the HPT because it has better performance.)
That pedestrian OS of which you speak actually is on several super computing clusters these days. I guess the maker of high performance computing platforms would beg to differ with you and your mechanics when it comes to making a fast computer, not that I'm, like, rubbin' it in, ya know.
About your other point, there is a military equivalent for Microsoft's coding. It's called 4F.
I was thinking it was more like driving a car into someone else's garage and the calling the police and saying they stole it.
This isn't BS at all. If they want drop in compatibilty, then they have to imitate something the software already runs on. That too simple of an answer for them to have asked it.
The question is, does the opens source community have standards that they require hardware venders to comply with pertaining to registers, interface, or whatever, and the answer is pretty much no. If the specs are available and somebody uses it, it will probably be supported. If the vender produces some radically different interface for a common device, it may take a while it get seemless intgration, but if they do that, you'd hope there'd be a gain in doing it that way.
The issue is that companies like Microsoft tell them they must present certain devices with certain interfaces or MS WILL NOT support them. In the open source community, if you don't provide good documentation they will not support you. It's the only comparible requirement in the open source world.
Even if you provide a drop in replacement for another device, it may work but no body will claim to support the device as such unless you document that it is supposed to work just like the device you're imitating and that device is documented.
I'm sure Firefox is nifty, but it sound like it's not all that mature yet, and I don't want to regress, yet again. I definatly am not ready to trust thunderbird. I'm still pissed from when I experimented with a maturing balsa, just to have it mangle my mail files, hose it's indexes, and start deleting the wrong messages.
My desktop is not a toy and there are certain function that should not be in constant beta. Email is one of them. Now I have to find a way to migrate, yet again, to something stable and functional for a mail and news reader.
And yes, I know there will probably be a community project that takes over. There will be a question of migration since we already know they can't use the same name, it's safe to say the dot directory will change and probably some of the files there in. And then there is a question of how smooth the transition will be. Will the software stay stable through all the churn. Will it stagnate like the old netscape suite? Do I want to bet another mailbox on it?
If there's going to be a migration, I want to at least be sure that the there is a stable program at the other end of the migration. Right now, the suite soon to be formerly known as Mozilla is an unknown.
but where I'm at, I've been told that they are preferring people with master's and the last few people we've hired have all had master's. I'm being encouraged to pursue one on the company's nickle (which I like) but due to the age of my two very young kids, it's going to be difficult on the family. (Ya, they'd pay for it. Like I should be complaining...)
I know a guy who was fired from a place because they claimed he put up a web site to 'impersonate' them on the web. He had a page with some scans from public brochures saying "...this is were I work...". He mentioned what he did there and what he liked about the company. The company dicovered this can fired him shortly before various 10yr benefits vested.
I've seen a number of post blasting Intel for constantly ripping off Apple's innovative ideas. I guess I'd like to know, how is making a gumball of a computer that matches your eyes and complements your shoes innovation? I'm not say Intel is any less of a ripoff artist, just that is sounds more like fashion than innovation to me.
"if (instr(buf,sys_errlist[errno])) /* you don't see this */"
* In eval.c from the perl source code
It the shoes. Make him look business ready. Put him in a suit. The tuxedo worked for the penguin, right?
...for my new r00t kit! Now I can upload this onto a machine to easily find all the sensitive logs to swipe and wipe. I'm gunna be a l33t hax0r. Yay me! (Now I just need to wait for a story about a new vunerability. This'll be kewl.)
Scientifically
Actually, they dated the shroud, called it a fake, called the Church frauds and patted themselves on the back.
In a later, unrelated case they had multiple artifacts from a site that dated differently when the scientists felt it wasn't possible. Hence they further analysed their results and samples and discovered the bioplastic.
Some time after that, someone when back and realized that the sample from the shroud had enough of this bioplastic to put the age back into the range suggested by the Church's records.
Also, I'm sure scientists can be quite meticulous when they want to. In the case, they did not do a standard dating. I think they worked from a single sample where they normally would work with several different samples and do 'best 2 out of 3' sort of thing. This was not entirely their fault in this case, but there were several other irregularities in their dating of the sample in comparison to serveral other interesting traits of the shroud.
Last I heard from the discovery channel, (and this was some time ago itself) no. They were working on a way to remove the bioplastic from such samples and they were also going to have to get an other sample from the Church.
Well, they might not want to let scientist cut the thing to shreds just to verify their 2000 year old paper trail that the Church already trusts. Further more, after the somewhat smug behavior of the scientists in calling the thing a fake, follow by the virtual silence (up until now for some reason) once it was determined that the were errors in the protocol and (due to the bioplastic) method, they might not consider the scientific community as impartial as they once did regarding the shroud. They already have enough smug folks (like you might see here) pointing to finding that have be found invalid already and they trust their paper trail.
If that's what you want to believe, sure. You don't need scientists for that. Good luck with that. At this point, people who want to believe, do. And people who do not want to believe, (like you I presume) don't. Both sides that care will rationalize their beliefs and they have hundred of years and countless scape-goats to throw up a sufficient smoke screen of rationalization to back them up. At this point you won't prove anything to everyone without a time machine.
For me, my basic beliefs about Christ do not change, regardless of the Shroud. I have learned a bit of a painful lesson myself however, having assumed the first findings were unquestionable, as presented to my by a history teacher who I later found was aggressively out smear all religious people as fools and/or liars. This was his evidence for the 6th grade class.
Years later, while wa
This isn't a case of a guy driving the get-away car. This is a case of saying "That junkie on the corner is selling crack." Everybody (including the police) know it, but because you say it, you're the criminal?
Like, where? Nebraska?
So. Do you think anyone will point out that Chuck D. and the Beastie's were the only ones on the previous CC album that chose a license that didn't allow commercial sampling? Think the'd give 'em create here for contibuting stuff to be sampled?