I was under the impression that Linux and Mozilla (and for that matter, most projects of their size) were just as much "core-team" model as GNU. There -is- a core team for both projects that handle what code goes where. You can submit GNU patches just as easily as Linux or Mozilla, though it may be a bit more bureaucratic over at GNU (::coughs::), resulting in your patch never actually getting applied. In either case, there is at least one step of your patch being reviewed by the core team unless you're actually a member of the team.
Anonymous people can't come up and just throw code into Mozilla like it's a wiki any more than they can with GNU. There's central control by an "elite" team of developers and reviewers.
The "open source" model consisting of code anarchy doesn't actually exist in real life. Large projects require control and management.
To some extent, Mozilla (and -maybe- Linux, but I really was not under that impression) is a bit more "open" than GNU, in that the process is more transparent. It is, however, the same essential process.
The GNU project was around for years even before the linux kernel. Here's a little timeline of when some prominent open source projects started:
GNU Emacs: 1984 GNU C compiler (gcc): 1987 Linux Kernel: 1991 KDE: 1996 Gnome: 1997 Mozilla: 1998
Admittedly, Mozilla had a head start by being based on Netscape, but it wasn't -open source- until 1998.
I'll agree with your point about the ending of the core suite having potential effects on the reputation of OSS (though I think it's very unlikely), but the first statement you made is just... off by many years.
This is a layman's explanation of Big-O notation. It is a notation used in computer science / complexity theory to indicate how fast a function grows and what is an upper bound.
The definition is that if a function f(n) is less than a function g(n) times a constant c for all n greater than or equal to some constant, then f(n) is a member of the set O(g(n)).
The code speaks for itself. Why would it matter who wrote it, if it's functional, understandable, and upon inspection, doesn't contain anything malicious?
There is no "uber-hax0r" out there just waiting to corrupt the elections. We have politicians to do that. No hacker is good enough to present a piece of code out in the middle of public scrutiny that nobody else would be able to see as malicious (if it was).
If the code is purposely obfuscated to the point that it is no longer understandable, it will most likely be rejected outright. If it is not, I would certainly be suspicious. That might be a reason to associate certain code with certain individuals for accountability, but I see no reason for background checks.
It's the "Woodlands" theme from this guy's site: http://www.bryanbell.com/radioThemes/
He says anyone is welcome to use the themes, or to adapt them for other weblogs (Roland Piquepaille runs Radio UserLand, which the theme was originally for, and Groklaw runs GeekLog).
well, you should really only have to write (n+1) translations... n for each of the n libraries into an intermediate compatibility layer, and then 1 more for that to the native system...
definitely a better approach than rewriting each toolkit for each primitive drawing system...
did you think this was 1995? the internet is a valid and often-used distribution medium for games at this point--so why not offload some bandwidth onto the customers? Valve and Blizzard get it.
are you kidding? i'm absolutely positive i saw Blue Screens of Death with Windows 95/98, and i think i might remember them from before that (windows 3.11 for workgroups?)...
the local authority seems to agree with me. quote: "The blue screen of death in one form or another has been present in all Windows operating systems since Windows version 2.0."
"As time goes on, computer systems and networks will simply be more secure by default"
Actually, what you really meant to say was "as time goes on, existing computer systems and networks will simply be more secure by default", and your hacker-hole-finder explanation is consistent with that.
However, we'll always be using brand-spankin' new software, not the old stuff that we've already found the holes in. As time goes on, new software comes out, and hackers spend X amount of time finding the holes in -that-. That's why there are still insecure pieces of software. I bet right now, we know how to make, oh, MS-DOS secure. But that's completely useless.
20 years from now, we'll have found all of the holes in Apache 2. Guess who will still be using Apache 2?
LOL, not only that, but without -any- criteria for what constitutes a theory, and how it differs from a myth (would creationism pass any such criteria?), you can have an effectively infinite number of potential theories to teach, and given the number of religious "theories" out there that explain the origin of life, that class would take many, many years.
a simple equation we can all enjoy:
(infinite number of potential theories) / (amount of time available in the class) = WHOOPS
Bill O'Reilly (to son of 9/11 victim): Shut up... (or i'll... use middle eastern food as a sponge? check out the third line from the bottom there, folks... )
1) what do you mean? I can open a new window in Firefox at any time by pressing CTRL-N. is that not what you're referring to?
2) if you're on IE now, that's not a reason not to switch, since they're the same. understandable, though, if you use Opera or something else that isn't so clumsy with it's bookmarks.
3) not any more oddly than Opera or Safari, in my experience. i'd say it's the best of any non-IE browser. i only come across one site every few months that can't be browsed with firefox, and never anything essential... some look a bit off, but the web was never about presentation, just information. if you like presentation, ask people to design websites in flash (*shudder*) and use the flash plugin on firefox...
4) I see you do use IE. that makes 2 a moot point. it's not a reason to switch, but like i said, it's not a reason not to.
Use it on a network other than the regular internet? You can always use BT over another completely anonymous network (with onion routing, etc)... is Tor the one I'm thinking of?
It isn't, for the sole reason of the DMCA. DVD content is protected by encryption, and it's illegal for you to break that encryption, regardless of copyright law and fair use. Despite the fair use rights (questionable, anyway) to watch a -copy- of something you already own, it's illegal under any circumstances for you to break the encryption on the DVD to watch it.
Needless to say, most/all of the DVDs being distributed on bittorrent were (at least) cracked, with encryption removed, if not converted into an entirely different format.
What exactly is a "Mpps"? I did a search on google and wikipedia and nothing relevant came up...
I'm assuming (based on standard conventions) that the M is mega, and the ps is per second... but what is the p? Pixels? (Last I checked, pixels don't get routed)...
Petabytes? Did someone forget that Peta was the amount and not the unit?:)
You'd think Pbps (petabytes per second) would suffice if that was the case... or an amount a few orders of magnitude larger than Peta for Mega Pbps...
last year i worked with another web designer who was better at the graphic design side of things, while i'm a code monkey... things worked out pretty well.
now i'm the only web designer, and i'm reworking my designs until they look good, and struggling with it... and i get photoshop mockups that don't look like web pages are supposed to look like, and i'm supposed to make them work with our templating system, and agh, it's horrid.
"some designers that wanna use Dreamweaver for whatever reason"...
As a web designer and server admin, I really hope they're only "designing" and not "implementing". If they think they can handle ASP, Perl, PHP, or JSP, then they should be able to handle the learning curve of GNU/Linux. If they can't handle server-side web programming, it's quite possible they should stick to better design tools (Photoshop? Publishing apps?) and let decent coders implement the mockups.
Code that comes out of Dreamweaver might look pretty (when rendered), but a comprehensive and efficient solution Dreamweaver pages do not make. At least it isn't Frontpage.
Way to completely ignore the issue. Congratulations.
If the complaints to the FCC were made by individuals demanding that their public airwaves be used to serve the public good, your comment would be appropriate, relevant, and right.
However, the whole point of the article is that 99.8% of the complaints, almost all of them, are coming from a single organization.
In case you haven't noticed, the majority of Americans watch television. LOTS of television. The people who are turning on the idiot box every day to watch Millionaire Fiancee Survivor and a rerun of World's Worst Groin Injuries are the majority among television viewers. That's why those programs are doing well!
I'm usually not a defender of free-market capitalism, but this is one place where it seems to work quite well. Clearly the demands of the people are being met, as they are quite satisfied (demonstrated by the massive amounts of television viewing)... and the demands of the few (this group and the 3 other people who complained to the FCC) should not be heeded until they need to be (when such groups represent the majority). Here's the catch: when enough people want this sort of thing off of TV, the TV stations will know to stop airing it... because so few people will be watching!
There might be a time when "wholesome" programming is more popular than today's latest sex/violence/whatever craze. Clearly that time is not now. If and when more viewers want wholesome programming (and less of the "bad" stuff), the television stations will be forced to comply--or lose ratings, marketshare, and $$. Big money makes the world go 'round.
Until then, let's let the market (and freedom of choice/expression) decide, shall we? It seems you're not on the winning side at the moment. You have my deepest regrets... I know what it's like.
Slashdot Mirror
I was under the impression that Linux and Mozilla (and for that matter, most projects of their size) were just as much "core-team" model as GNU. There -is- a core team for both projects that handle what code goes where. You can submit GNU patches just as easily as Linux or Mozilla, though it may be a bit more bureaucratic over at GNU (::coughs::), resulting in your patch never actually getting applied. In either case, there is at least one step of your patch being reviewed by the core team unless you're actually a member of the team.
Anonymous people can't come up and just throw code into Mozilla like it's a wiki any more than they can with GNU. There's central control by an "elite" team of developers and reviewers.
The "open source" model consisting of code anarchy doesn't actually exist in real life. Large projects require control and management.
To some extent, Mozilla (and -maybe- Linux, but I really was not under that impression) is a bit more "open" than GNU, in that the process is more transparent. It is, however, the same essential process.
The GNU project was around for years even before the linux kernel. Here's a little timeline of when some prominent open source projects started:
GNU Emacs: 1984
GNU C compiler (gcc): 1987
Linux Kernel: 1991
KDE: 1996
Gnome: 1997
Mozilla: 1998
Admittedly, Mozilla had a head start by being based on Netscape, but it wasn't -open source- until 1998.
I'll agree with your point about the ending of the core suite having potential effects on the reputation of OSS (though I think it's very unlikely), but the first statement you made is just... off by many years.
This is a layman's explanation of Big-O notation. It is a notation used in computer science / complexity theory to indicate how fast a function grows and what is an upper bound.
The definition is that if a function f(n) is less than a function g(n) times a constant c for all n greater than or equal to some constant, then f(n) is a member of the set O(g(n)).
f(n) = n(n-1)/2=(n^2-n)/2
g(n) = n^2
c = (1/2) * 2 = 1
For all n >= 1, this f(n) = c*g(n).
Therefore, f(n) = O(g(n)).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_o_notation
The code speaks for itself. Why would it matter who wrote it, if it's functional, understandable, and upon inspection, doesn't contain anything malicious?
There is no "uber-hax0r" out there just waiting to corrupt the elections. We have politicians to do that. No hacker is good enough to present a piece of code out in the middle of public scrutiny that nobody else would be able to see as malicious (if it was).
If the code is purposely obfuscated to the point that it is no longer understandable, it will most likely be rejected outright. If it is not, I would certainly be suspicious. That might be a reason to associate certain code with certain individuals for accountability, but I see no reason for background checks.
Usually it's the "hitching" part that's illegal, not the "hiking" part.
It's the "Woodlands" theme from this guy's site: http://www.bryanbell.com/radioThemes/
He says anyone is welcome to use the themes, or to adapt them for other weblogs (Roland Piquepaille runs Radio UserLand, which the theme was originally for, and Groklaw runs GeekLog).
the "accelerator", not qemu!
m l
the "accelerator" refers to the accelerator module, kqemu, which can be found here: http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/qemu-accel.ht
it is a -module- for qemu.
well, you should really only have to write (n+1) translations... n for each of the n libraries into an intermediate compatibility layer, and then 1 more for that to the native system...
definitely a better approach than rewriting each toolkit for each primitive drawing system...
well, and full games. of course.
did you think this was 1995? the internet is a valid and often-used distribution medium for games at this point--so why not offload some bandwidth onto the customers? Valve and Blizzard get it.
are you kidding? i'm absolutely positive i saw Blue Screens of Death with Windows 95/98, and i think i might remember them from before that (windows 3.11 for workgroups?)...
the local authority seems to agree with me. quote: "The blue screen of death in one form or another has been present in all Windows operating systems since Windows version 2.0."
also, "Microsoft Windows version 2 came out in 1987"
"As time goes on, computer systems and networks will simply be more secure by default"
Actually, what you really meant to say was "as time goes on, existing computer systems and networks will simply be more secure by default", and your hacker-hole-finder explanation is consistent with that.
However, we'll always be using brand-spankin' new software, not the old stuff that we've already found the holes in. As time goes on, new software comes out, and hackers spend X amount of time finding the holes in -that-. That's why there are still insecure pieces of software. I bet right now, we know how to make, oh, MS-DOS secure. But that's completely useless.
20 years from now, we'll have found all of the holes in Apache 2. Guess who will still be using Apache 2?
LOL, not only that, but without -any- criteria for what constitutes a theory, and how it differs from a myth (would creationism pass any such criteria?), you can have an effectively infinite number of potential theories to teach, and given the number of religious "theories" out there that explain the origin of life, that class would take many, many years.
a simple equation we can all enjoy:
(infinite number of potential theories) / (amount of time available in the class) = WHOOPS
I'm from Long Island, and I could have swore it's the place where rude people rule supreme... but apparently not today. :(
Bill O'Reilly: Shut up
... (or i'll... use middle eastern food as a sponge? check out the third line from the bottom there, folks... )
Bill O'Reilly (again): Shut up
Bill O'Reilly (to son of 9/11 victim): Shut up
1) what do you mean? I can open a new window in Firefox at any time by pressing CTRL-N. is that not what you're referring to?
2) if you're on IE now, that's not a reason not to switch, since they're the same. understandable, though, if you use Opera or something else that isn't so clumsy with it's bookmarks.
3) not any more oddly than Opera or Safari, in my experience. i'd say it's the best of any non-IE browser. i only come across one site every few months that can't be browsed with firefox, and never anything essential... some look a bit off, but the web was never about presentation, just information. if you like presentation, ask people to design websites in flash (*shudder*) and use the flash plugin on firefox...
4) I see you do use IE. that makes 2 a moot point. it's not a reason to switch, but like i said, it's not a reason not to.
yes, read about it here: http://slashdot.org/articles/04/03/17/0210237.shtm l?tid=126&tid=187&tid=95
it links to a NYtimes article, reg required.
Use it on a network other than the regular internet? You can always use BT over another completely anonymous network (with onion routing, etc) ... is Tor the one I'm thinking of?
not quite the same thing, but the cards are the same size, with the same plug, and most laptops allow cardbus and pcmcia in the same slot.
pcmcia is older, and is basically ISA
cardbus is newer, and is (as described) a superset of PCI with more bandwidth than pcmcia (afaik).
It isn't, for the sole reason of the DMCA. DVD content is protected by encryption, and it's illegal for you to break that encryption, regardless of copyright law and fair use. Despite the fair use rights (questionable, anyway) to watch a -copy- of something you already own, it's illegal under any circumstances for you to break the encryption on the DVD to watch it.
Needless to say, most/all of the DVDs being distributed on bittorrent were (at least) cracked, with encryption removed, if not converted into an entirely different format.
lol, thanks. good to know. i was just rambling before...
What exactly is a "Mpps"? I did a search on google and wikipedia and nothing relevant came up...
:)
I'm assuming (based on standard conventions) that the M is mega, and the ps is per second... but what is the p? Pixels? (Last I checked, pixels don't get routed)...
Petabytes? Did someone forget that Peta was the amount and not the unit?
You'd think Pbps (petabytes per second) would suffice if that was the case... or an amount a few orders of magnitude larger than Peta for Mega Pbps...
http://transgaming.org/gamesdb/games/view.mhtml?ga me_id=2380
that sounds -perfect- to me.
last year i worked with another web designer who was better at the graphic design side of things, while i'm a code monkey... things worked out pretty well.
now i'm the only web designer, and i'm reworking my designs until they look good, and struggling with it... and i get photoshop mockups that don't look like web pages are supposed to look like, and i'm supposed to make them work with our templating system, and agh, it's horrid.
not really. it isn't all that bad.
"some designers that wanna use Dreamweaver for whatever reason" ...
As a web designer and server admin, I really hope they're only "designing" and not "implementing". If they think they can handle ASP, Perl, PHP, or JSP, then they should be able to handle the learning curve of GNU/Linux. If they can't handle server-side web programming, it's quite possible they should stick to better design tools (Photoshop? Publishing apps?) and let decent coders implement the mockups.
Code that comes out of Dreamweaver might look pretty (when rendered), but a comprehensive and efficient solution Dreamweaver pages do not make. At least it isn't Frontpage.
Way to completely ignore the issue. Congratulations.
If the complaints to the FCC were made by individuals demanding that their public airwaves be used to serve the public good, your comment would be appropriate, relevant, and right.
However, the whole point of the article is that 99.8% of the complaints, almost all of them, are coming from a single organization.
In case you haven't noticed, the majority of Americans watch television. LOTS of television. The people who are turning on the idiot box every day to watch Millionaire Fiancee Survivor and a rerun of World's Worst Groin Injuries are the majority among television viewers. That's why those programs are doing well!
I'm usually not a defender of free-market capitalism, but this is one place where it seems to work quite well. Clearly the demands of the people are being met, as they are quite satisfied (demonstrated by the massive amounts of television viewing)... and the demands of the few (this group and the 3 other people who complained to the FCC) should not be heeded until they need to be (when such groups represent the majority). Here's the catch: when enough people want this sort of thing off of TV, the TV stations will know to stop airing it... because so few people will be watching!
There might be a time when "wholesome" programming is more popular than today's latest sex/violence/whatever craze. Clearly that time is not now. If and when more viewers want wholesome programming (and less of the "bad" stuff), the television stations will be forced to comply--or lose ratings, marketshare, and $$. Big money makes the world go 'round.
Until then, let's let the market (and freedom of choice/expression) decide, shall we? It seems you're not on the winning side at the moment. You have my deepest regrets... I know what it's like.