There is no difference between a soldier with super-weapons and the 'support of his government' laying waste to a village chasing 'a bad guy', and a couple of desperate radicals high-jacking a plane and crashing it into New York.
If you want to continue to justify death, go ahead. Its your reality, you make it...
However, when Bush (& the country) were convinced Saddam was a threat we went about matters in a "war-like" matter. We destroyed military targets & targets of military importance. Civilians were killed and civilian targets were hit, but it was not purposeful. Thank goodness that we are not still in the days of massive carpet bombing of cities like WWII.
So, in order to enact my own genocide against a populace, I need only go about doing it in a 'war-like' manner?
Sorry, but your excuses for aggression are criminal. You skirt your responsibilies as an American, for the death of thousands of innocents, in the name of your country, with your Police State logic.
Whatever the logic, that man is killing man, for whatever reason, is wrong.
We must remember the difference between war & terrorism. Those who wage war are fought against, but not necessarily deamed evil.
Anyone who kills another human being is evil. Full stop.
It's too bad there's no "incoherent leftist babble" mod, because this is ridiculous.
Since I do not know you, I will refrain from insulting you.
However, you are a reactionary fascist triggery-happy puppet baboon.
I don't have to live as a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan to glean that their movement is a fascist, religiously intolerant temper tantrum against the modern world. All I have to do is LISTEN to what THEY THEMSELVES say about their movement and WATCH as they behead innocent civilians simply because they aren't muslim.
And how is it you are hearing them say these things, if you are not talking to them, directly, willingly attempting to understand their point of view?
Or do you maintain utter faith in the righteousness of your intelligence services, which would never lie to you about the intentions of the enemy?
Rather than redefining the word "terrorism" next time we want to push our own agendas, let's just call a spade a spade. Rather than terrorism, we're in a war against Fundamentalist Islam.
As opposed to that other Islam you know all about already, right?
To assume that you can understand terrorism without first living the life that these people lead is naive and ingenuous.
"They" are terrorists, but to them, among themselves, "They" are freedom fighters.
Just like the average American Soldier feels he's "just doing his job", or "fighting the good fight for America", so do these poor, impoverished 'terrorists' feel that their lifestyle, and the actions they are taking in their lives, are righteous.
If you cannot understand that side of things, and see things from their side of things before formulating your own point of view (and settling on 'murder' as the solution), then terrorism will perpetually defeat you.
"Terrorism" is not about "Them", or "A vs. B". Terrorism is a War against those whould define the terms of Terrorism, and those who would define the terms of Civilization.
In other words, true terrorists are those who create a 'bad guy' in order to convince their fellow man to go to war...
Windows, being windows, has lots of drivers for it.
Yeah, but which of those drivers are you going to use for embedded computing? A very, very, very small subset...
And I still dispute that 'linux doesnt have the drivers it needs for embedded work'. Straw man. Linux has everything you need for embedded work, and offers more than Windows. Period.
XP Embedded is 100% customisable. You can choose to keep every single part of the OS, or as little as you want. It runs on low-power, low-cost chips.
Umm... whats the lowest-power, lowest cost chip that XP Embedded will run on? Please, enlighten me.
With your final argument, isn't linux late to the desktop party? Maybe everyone should just give up on that, too.
Who said anyone should give up on anything? Except maybe you, on this argument...
Any embedded development worth its salt has full driver control, beginning to end. Embedded means not needing 'extendable device drivers' on a continual, fluctuating basis, in your specs...
'Embedded' doesn't just mean 'theres a computer in it'. It means 'it is fully functioning, does not need changing'. The 'device drivers' argument in Windows-land, where anyone and their monkey brother are gonna plug crap in and tweak away, does not apply to 'embedded'. Once its running, its running; you leave it alone.
And, whatever it is thats lead you to say "linux doesn't have device drivers for embedded" can only mean that you haven't looked at the kernel source much... I'll let that speak for itself, you should check it out some time. You will find yourself quite wrong, I expect. (hint: i2s/i2c/i28, usb*.c, firewire.c...)
Linux runs in places Microsoft fear. There are Linux-friendly CPU and device platforms in which WinAPI will not only be Total Suck in the RAM department, but will also fail typical embedded-systems tests, and qualifications. Linux excels at certification for some embedded-system qualifications... why? Because chip vendors are even using it as a systems/test/implementation platform. Linux is typically the first bit of code that runs on some chip fabs... and boy, what a selection of CPU's you have available to make a choice from...
Because of Microsofts utter domination of the API realm, you do 'embedded computing' the Microsoft way, or the highway. If you'd done any embedded systems work already, you'd recognize instantly the problem with that ideology, entirely.
With Linux, you can scale your API-use down to the $/per-CPU/-RAM level of the month! Take your pic of operating environments, setup, execute schemes!
Windows, on the other hand, forces you into Moores Laws' Tight Grip, and the irony is that it wouldn't even be runnable on the few low-power/high-mhz CPU's it does run on, if it weren't for that very Law...
As for your comment regarding my disingenuity, I can only say that I work in embedded systems, and keep an eye on pretty much all developments as part of my daily job. For Embedded, Linux Rules. Windows, meanwhile, is late to the party...
... as opposed to the 'Dilbert' kind, exists only to keep the rest of the company communicating well with each other.
You can't put stuff in the hands of your customer without communication. Good companies do it well, poor companies, well... poorly...
So, yeah. Software teams who just really communicate well, do better together. Its kind of obvious, duh...
But the thing is, the general 'ideal' that "Management = Bad" can be traced as a meme back to failures of Management to keep people talking to each other, well, and... happily... while they work.
XP Embedded is here, has a tiny footprint, has EXCELLENT driver support (can't say the same for embedded linux, or even linux for that matter (not a flame, experience)).
Can you run XP Embedded completely headless? Does the entire operating system depend on having a GUI running? I don't know the answer to these questions, its an honest query...
As for driver support - you don't need driver support for embedded operating systems, proper. And embedded operating system isn't something you're going to be adding new hardware to, constantly, on a frequent basis.
On this basis, embedded linux is superlative - simply because it already has all the things an embedded developer needs in order to get it running on custom hardware...
The idea that one should 'make a better windows' is rubbish. Windows is just that: a GUI.
Computers, to be effective, should not depend on the GUI in order to get all the work done that they can possibly do... its far more productive to have a computer, embedded into some work process, which doesn't actually require any interface in order to function... and in that regard (I'm a professional embedded systems developer, working for a commercial company, producing for-profit) Linux is far superior to any 'embedded' versions of the Windows 'kernel' which Microsoft has to offer...
Try running Windows entirely headless one day. Then try doing it with Linux. You'll get far more done with Linux, especially developing headless apps, than with Windows, I think you'll find...
Re:That's not a software giant, THIS is a ...
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 1
I quote:
D) Don't kid yourself about why Wal Mart has had a tough time in Germany - it has nothing at all to do with how clever their competition is, and everything to do with how the deck is stacked against them from the get-go. Take off the shackles by changing the laws, and I guarantee you'll see just how formidable they can be, even in Germany.
and:
it's not because their Teutonic competition is somehow more capable than retailers elsewhere.
Seems like you're rooting for the away team to me...
for i in range(len(x)):z=z.replace(y[i],x[i]) z=z.split('| ') for o in range(9):
exec("def %c():\n\tglobal k,m,o,j\n\t%s\n"%(chr(97+o),z[o])) l={'>':c,'<':d,'-': b,'+':a,',':e,'.':f,'[':g,']':h} i()
and realized it'd probably make a pretty good crypt message, scraped on the limestone wall...
It's a really nice idea, with great direct effects and horrible side-effects.
You seem to have missed the point of the article intro-text entirely.
If you come at Python like you're studying it, for fun, and not "entering curve on a running project" (whatever that means), then you don't actually trip up on the language/problem domain issue. Instead, you have fun with it, and it makes programming fun again...
Re:That's not a software giant, THIS is a ...
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 1
Did you even read the post I was responding to originally?
What I have read of you so far leads me to conclude that you are on the defensive over an American Business Practice vs. State Law (Germany).
Its fine if Americans will win at everything. But its also fine if the German government intends to level the playing field for corporate power, too. Maybe, as you seem to desire, Germany can learn something from America after all...
Its interesting that you pointed that out. It reminds me that TV just happens to be one of the bits of software that has managed to maintain itself at v1.0.2 for a fair period.
How easy it is to forget its software. What an interface.
Re:That's not a software giant, THIS is a ...
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 1
it's not because their Teutonic competition is somehow more capable than retailers elsewhere.
umm... as if that matters? you're setting up a straw man.
Whether Germans want it that way or not is neither here nor there
Yes it is. If they wanted a wal-mart, there'd be a wal-mart. That there isn't is a reflection that Wal-Mart isn't something that Germans want.
Whereas Americans seem fine with the notion of an all-encompassing 'winner takes everything' attitude, perhaps the Germans are a little... jittery... about the notion.
After all, look what Hitler did. You don't want another Hitler do you?
Re:That's not a software giant, THIS is a ...
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Take off the shackles by changing the laws, and I guarantee you'll see just how formidable they can be, even in Germany.
Umm.. yeah. as you seem to imply, thats why those laws are there: to prevent exactly such a thing happening.
maybe germans don't want a wal-mart, huh? did you ever think of that, did you, huh?
hey, its happening here in germany... it'll happen in england soon enough...
thats just the start of it.
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
that humble little vmlinuz can run on tons of things. sure, desktops got everyones eyeballs and twitchy middle finger all wrapped up, but linux computers don't need an interface. at all. in order to do Real Work.
no, i'm not just talking about beouwulfs and the like, i mean things like vending machines, HVAC control, ticketing systems, etc...
(embedded linux is where microsoft is going to have fight our lead...)
assuming they do make the "switch", however, doesn't automatically make them a humongous player in open-source software. this is because suddenly, they're playing by a new set of rules.
If MS Linux was available from Microsoft, hardly anyone would really bother with any of the other distro's.
Especially if it were a decent distro.
Microsoft have one thing that other Open Source companies don't have, and need badly: Capital.
Turn out an MS Linux, and with Bill Gates' $$$-pile, the face of Open Source operating systems could be irrevocably changed, forever...
If Microsoft sells a box-package of MS Linux for $50, or includes it in their 'Server Suite', thats pure profit. They have just as much of a right to sell it as anyone else... and there are plenty of people who would switch to Linux, if MS Linux was on the roadmap...
if they played entirely by our rules for 2 years, they'd still have enough cash left over to compete with whoever survived having all open-source revenues robbed from them.
mark my words. if microsoft 'switch' to open source, then the 'open source industry' is doomed. it'll be a strict and stringent reversal back to closed-bins technologies, a sudden boom in impregnable on chip hardware dongle-ization, and microsoft will have both 'open source free' and 'propietary hardware system' markets pretty much in hand.
its foolish to think they won't switch, 'just coz'. they very well could become, in 6 months, one of the biggest Open Source players, defeating all who once thought they had a chance. this story may be the prelude to that...
... is to build their own Distro, brand it with the Microsoft logo, and get it into distribution channels as far and as wide as possible.
It makes no sense for Microsoft to 'resist' Linux at all. Microsoft are just as capable of doing a kernel.tar.gz and stage1.tar.gz style release as anyone else. Why don't they just do it?
If there were a "Microsoft Linux", then Novell wouldn't stand a chance. Any existing MS-only shop looking to upgrade to Linux would definitely consider an "MS Linux" package over any other option, at least at first.
Seems to me, this article, and a few of the other ones recently from Microsoft on the subject of "Linux", is all a big prep-job to open the doors for a Microsoft-sourced Linux distro.
It could happen. I'd like to see it happen, personally. It'd be good to give people like these guys, and heck, even these guys a bit of competition from Microsoft...
Slashdot Mirror
yeah ... i'd be far more impressed if it were just some text-mode interface or something ... mabye XMLTerm or some such thing, that could be neat ...
Seeing Win2k in that thing is just too incongruous. Great that its a computer, suck that its a toy OS.
no difference between a terrorist and a freedom-fighter
...
the only difference is who is calling them what. to them, they are fighting for freedom. to 'us', they are terrorist scum to be defeated.
you only get away with calling them terrorist scum because you don't like their ideology
There is no difference between a soldier with super-weapons and the 'support of his government' laying waste to a village chasing 'a bad guy', and a couple of desperate radicals high-jacking a plane and crashing it into New York.
If you want to continue to justify death, go ahead. Its your reality, you make it
However, when Bush (& the country) were convinced Saddam was a threat we went about matters in a "war-like" matter. We destroyed military targets & targets of military importance. Civilians were killed and civilian targets were hit, but it was not purposeful. Thank goodness that we are not still in the days of massive carpet bombing of cities like WWII.
So, in order to enact my own genocide against a populace, I need only go about doing it in a 'war-like' manner?
Sorry, but your excuses for aggression are criminal. You skirt your responsibilies as an American, for the death of thousands of innocents, in the name of your country, with your Police State logic.
Whatever the logic, that man is killing man, for whatever reason, is wrong.
We must remember the difference between war & terrorism. Those who wage war are fought against, but not necessarily deamed evil.
Anyone who kills another human being is evil. Full stop.
It's too bad there's no "incoherent leftist babble" mod, because this is ridiculous.
Since I do not know you, I will refrain from insulting you.
However, you are a reactionary fascist triggery-happy puppet baboon.
I don't have to live as a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan to glean that their movement is a fascist, religiously intolerant temper tantrum against the modern world. All I have to do is LISTEN to what THEY THEMSELVES say about their movement and WATCH as they behead innocent civilians simply because they aren't muslim.
And how is it you are hearing them say these things, if you are not talking to them, directly, willingly attempting to understand their point of view?
Or do you maintain utter faith in the righteousness of your intelligence services, which would never lie to you about the intentions of the enemy?
Rather than redefining the word "terrorism" next time we want to push our own agendas, let's just call a spade a spade. Rather than terrorism, we're in a war against Fundamentalist Islam.
As opposed to that other Islam you know all about already, right?
To assume that you can understand terrorism without first living the life that these people lead is naive and ingenuous.
...
"They" are terrorists, but to them, among themselves, "They" are freedom fighters.
Just like the average American Soldier feels he's "just doing his job", or "fighting the good fight for America", so do these poor, impoverished 'terrorists' feel that their lifestyle, and the actions they are taking in their lives, are righteous.
If you cannot understand that side of things, and see things from their side of things before formulating your own point of view (and settling on 'murder' as the solution), then terrorism will perpetually defeat you.
"Terrorism" is not about "Them", or "A vs. B". Terrorism is a War against those whould define the terms of Terrorism, and those who would define the terms of Civilization.
In other words, true terrorists are those who create a 'bad guy' in order to convince their fellow man to go to war
Windows, being windows, has lots of drivers for it.
...
Yeah, but which of those drivers are you going to use for embedded computing? A very, very, very small subset...
And I still dispute that 'linux doesnt have the drivers it needs for embedded work'. Straw man. Linux has everything you need for embedded work, and offers more than Windows. Period.
XP Embedded is 100% customisable. You can choose to keep every single part of the OS, or as little as you want. It runs on low-power, low-cost chips.
Umm... whats the lowest-power, lowest cost chip that XP Embedded will run on? Please, enlighten me.
With your final argument, isn't linux late to the desktop party? Maybe everyone should just give up on that, too.
Who said anyone should give up on anything? Except maybe you, on this argument
Any embedded development worth its salt has full driver control, beginning to end. Embedded means not needing 'extendable device drivers' on a continual, fluctuating basis, in your specs ...
...)
... why? Because chip vendors are even using it as a systems/test/implementation platform. Linux is typically the first bit of code that runs on some chip fabs ... and boy, what a selection of CPU's you have available to make a choice from ...
...
'Embedded' doesn't just mean 'theres a computer in it'. It means 'it is fully functioning, does not need changing'. The 'device drivers' argument in Windows-land, where anyone and their monkey brother are gonna plug crap in and tweak away, does not apply to 'embedded'. Once its running, its running; you leave it alone.
And, whatever it is thats lead you to say "linux doesn't have device drivers for embedded" can only mean that you haven't looked at the kernel source much... I'll let that speak for itself, you should check it out some time. You will find yourself quite wrong, I expect. (hint: i2s/i2c/i28, usb*.c, firewire.c
Linux runs in places Microsoft fear. There are Linux-friendly CPU and device platforms in which WinAPI will not only be Total Suck in the RAM department, but will also fail typical embedded-systems tests, and qualifications. Linux excels at certification for some embedded-system qualifications
Because of Microsofts utter domination of the API realm, you do 'embedded computing' the Microsoft way, or the highway. If you'd done any embedded systems work already, you'd recognize instantly the problem with that ideology, entirely.
With Linux, you can scale your API-use down to the $/per-CPU/-RAM level of the month! Take your pic of operating environments, setup, execute schemes!
Windows, on the other hand, forces you into Moores Laws' Tight Grip, and the irony is that it wouldn't even be runnable on the few low-power/high-mhz CPU's it does run on, if it weren't for that very Law...
As for your comment regarding my disingenuity, I can only say that I work in embedded systems, and keep an eye on pretty much all developments as part of my daily job. For Embedded, Linux Rules. Windows, meanwhile, is late to the party
... as opposed to the 'Dilbert' kind, exists only to keep the rest of the company communicating well with each other.
... poorly ...
...
... happily ... while they work.
You can't put stuff in the hands of your customer without communication. Good companies do it well, poor companies, well
So, yeah. Software teams who just really communicate well, do better together. Its kind of obvious, duh
But the thing is, the general 'ideal' that "Management = Bad" can be traced as a meme back to failures of Management to keep people talking to each other, well, and
XP Embedded is here, has a tiny footprint, has EXCELLENT driver support (can't say the same for embedded linux, or even linux for that matter (not a flame, experience)).
...
...
... its far more productive to have a computer, embedded into some work process, which doesn't actually require any interface in order to function ... and in that regard (I'm a professional embedded systems developer, working for a commercial company, producing for-profit) Linux is far superior to any 'embedded' versions of the Windows 'kernel' which Microsoft has to offer ...
...
Can you run XP Embedded completely headless? Does the entire operating system depend on having a GUI running? I don't know the answer to these questions, its an honest query
As for driver support - you don't need driver support for embedded operating systems, proper. And embedded operating system isn't something you're going to be adding new hardware to, constantly, on a frequent basis.
On this basis, embedded linux is superlative - simply because it already has all the things an embedded developer needs in order to get it running on custom hardware
The idea that one should 'make a better windows' is rubbish. Windows is just that: a GUI.
Computers, to be effective, should not depend on the GUI in order to get all the work done that they can possibly do
Try running Windows entirely headless one day. Then try doing it with Linux. You'll get far more done with Linux, especially developing headless apps, than with Windows, I think you'll find
I quote:
...
D) Don't kid yourself about why Wal Mart has had a tough time in Germany - it has nothing at all to do with how clever their competition is, and everything to do with how the deck is stacked against them from the get-go. Take off the shackles by changing the laws, and I guarantee you'll see just how formidable they can be, even in Germany.
and:
it's not because their Teutonic competition is somehow more capable than retailers elsewhere.
Seems like you're rooting for the away team to me
It's a really nice idea, with great direct effects and horrible side-effects.
...
You seem to have missed the point of the article intro-text entirely.
If you come at Python like you're studying it, for fun, and not "entering curve on a running project" (whatever that means), then you don't actually trip up on the language/problem domain issue. Instead, you have fun with it, and it makes programming fun again
Did you even read the post I was responding to originally?
...
What I have read of you so far leads me to conclude that you are on the defensive over an American Business Practice vs. State Law (Germany).
Its fine if Americans will win at everything. But its also fine if the German government intends to level the playing field for corporate power, too. Maybe, as you seem to desire, Germany can learn something from America after all
good design.
Its interesting that you pointed that out. It reminds me that TV just happens to be one of the bits of software that has managed to maintain itself at v1.0.2 for a fair period.
How easy it is to forget its software. What an interface.
States of Europe, whatever.
it's not because their Teutonic competition is somehow more capable than retailers elsewhere.
... as if that matters? you're setting up a straw man.
... jittery ... about the notion.
umm
Whether Germans want it that way or not is neither here nor there
Yes it is. If they wanted a wal-mart, there'd be a wal-mart. That there isn't is a reflection that Wal-Mart isn't something that Germans want.
Whereas Americans seem fine with the notion of an all-encompassing 'winner takes everything' attitude, perhaps the Germans are a little
After all, look what Hitler did. You don't want another Hitler do you?
Take off the shackles by changing the laws, and I guarantee you'll see just how formidable they can be, even in Germany.
Umm.. yeah. as you seem to imply, thats why those laws are there: to prevent exactly such a thing happening.
maybe germans don't want a wal-mart, huh? did you ever think of that, did you, huh?
hey, its happening here in germany ... it'll happen in england soon enough...
that humble little vmlinuz can run on tons of things. sure, desktops got everyones eyeballs and twitchy middle finger all wrapped up, but linux computers don't need an interface. at all. in order to do Real Work.
no, i'm not just talking about beouwulfs and the like, i mean things like vending machines, HVAC control, ticketing systems, etc...
(embedded linux is where microsoft is going to have fight our lead...)
assuming they do make the "switch", however, doesn't automatically make them a humongous player in open-source software. this is because suddenly, they're playing by a new set of rules.
... and there are plenty of people who would switch to Linux, if MS Linux was on the roadmap...
If MS Linux was available from Microsoft, hardly anyone would really bother with any of the other distro's.
Especially if it were a decent distro.
Microsoft have one thing that other Open Source companies don't have, and need badly: Capital.
Turn out an MS Linux, and with Bill Gates' $$$-pile, the face of Open Source operating systems could be irrevocably changed, forever...
If Microsoft sells a box-package of MS Linux for $50, or includes it in their 'Server Suite', thats pure profit. They have just as much of a right to sell it as anyone else
Why can't the UN and it's member parties that aren't the US grow some balls and take care of things?
Because U.S. Intelligence prevents them from doing exactly that. Thats the job of U.S. Intelligence; maintain U.S. military supremacy.
This means, not letting anyone else be the good cop.
rubbish.
if they played entirely by our rules for 2 years, they'd still have enough cash left over to compete with whoever survived having all open-source revenues robbed from them.
mark my words. if microsoft 'switch' to open source, then the 'open source industry' is doomed. it'll be a strict and stringent reversal back to closed-bins technologies, a sudden boom in impregnable on chip hardware dongle-ization, and microsoft will have both 'open source free' and 'propietary hardware system' markets pretty much in hand.
its foolish to think they won't switch, 'just coz'. they very well could become, in 6 months, one of the biggest Open Source players, defeating all who once thought they had a chance. this story may be the prelude to that
... is to build their own Distro, brand it with the Microsoft logo, and get it into distribution channels as far and as wide as possible.
...
It makes no sense for Microsoft to 'resist' Linux at all. Microsoft are just as capable of doing a kernel.tar.gz and stage1.tar.gz style release as anyone else. Why don't they just do it?
If there were a "Microsoft Linux", then Novell wouldn't stand a chance. Any existing MS-only shop looking to upgrade to Linux would definitely consider an "MS Linux" package over any other option, at least at first.
Seems to me, this article, and a few of the other ones recently from Microsoft on the subject of "Linux", is all a big prep-job to open the doors for a Microsoft-sourced Linux distro.
It could happen. I'd like to see it happen, personally. It'd be good to give people like these guys, and heck, even these guys a bit of competition from Microsoft