They still worry me (freaked me out first time too). Five rockets just ain't cheap (nor is one or two BFG shot's or 40-80 plasma shots). They're tough mothers.
On the otherhand, I tend to panic whenever I encounter either a spider deamon or a cyber deamon (unless they're under a crusher, or fighting each other).
NOTE: I'm speakinf for myself, not Daniel Quinlan.
I think that in stating that "GLIBC 2.1 is the standard", Quinlan was meaning that gblic 2.1 will be used as the basis of what libc.so must provide. ie what functions are exported and what they do (ie glibc 2.1's functionality will be used as the standard, not glibc 2.1 itself). This means that so long as all of glibc 2.1's functionality is provided, any libc can be substitued, even (shudder) M$libc 6.66:P.
It would be the height of stupidity to specify an actuall library version. Instead, as is done for ANSI C in general, the functionality of the library should be specified. This nicely allows for future growth. Anything new will just be extensions and can eventually be folded back into the standard once those extensions have `stabilized' as such.
Also, thanks for your efforts with OpenDos (pitty your bosses wouldn't listen then).
I remember you from the OpenDos mailing list on DJ Delorie's server. For me, those were the days. Oh the heady excitement, a free(ish) open source dos! Still got od701 on a cdrom.
First, thanks for the warning. However, I've been avoiding actually looking at these things just for that reason: I hate spoilers. Even though I would really like to see the trailers, read all the articles, etc, I don't simply because I want to go and see TPM and have a similar experience to when I saw StarWars. ie know nothing.
*sigh* unfortunatly, that's rather impossible. For one, I was seven when I first saw SW in '78 (I think it came around for a second summer, or was still there), I had absolutly no idea what to expect (the only SciFi shows I'd seen before were Space 1999, The Six Million Dollar Man, and Star Trek (and not much of that, either). Now, I've seen all three (SW, ESB, ROTJ) several times, including the revamps (hated the modification to the saarlak (sp?) pit (that blasted Dune ripoff worm, bletch)), read the novelizations and 4.5 of the extra novels. So, unfortunatly, the only thing that will come as a supprise will be the actual story line (even the lightstaff wont be a supprise, unfortunatly, but thanks to a previous poster for the name of the weapon, I couldn't think of the word `staff' when I saw the piccy (my wife's women's mag)).
Still, I plan on going and enjoying the movie, with no, or minimal, spoilers!
That's what it (the cutting down of the successful) is called in Autralia. Not only is it ingrained in the culture (it's not just teen's that do it), but it's fully (? reasonably, at least) acknowleged (hence the name).
5 years?!? How about 15 years! I distincly remember seeing an optical mouse (with that funky mouse pad) back in 83-84 in Computerland (Medicine Hat, Alta). Can't remember what it was attached to, though.
This auto-login, auto-shutdown required two minor customizations: a script to 'su' to her userid, run 'startx', wait for it to exit, then run 'shutdown -h now'; and a change to/etc/inittab to launch this script automatically.
Now, that is one cool idea, especially for setting up a machine for people coming from Windows. I don't need it myself as I've got myself and my family used to just logging out and turning off the monitor (in fact, the power switch is taped in: little fingers:).
My parents are talking about getting a machine, and mom's making noises about Linux (due to my comments). Depending on what she wants, I just might wind up using something like this when/if she gets me to set it up. Thanks.
Drdos had about 10% of the market, and climbing. 10% of windows/dos revenue for the last 10 years, which is then tripled for antitrust violations, is a staggering figure...
assuming 1000 copies a day at $100 a copy, thats 1000*365.25*10*100*0.1*3 = 109575000. ie 110 billion dollars. Ouch
According to the book (ESB), Lukes stump was cauterized. Anyway, if a lightsaber leaves scorch marks on metal objects (the metal posts in ESB), I can't imagine it not cauterizing a wound (not necessarily perfectly, though).
Not just you. The only addition I didn't like in all three movies was the sarlack (sp?) pit. The worm sucked and was a direct ripoff of Dune. Other than that, all the additions were great!
BTW, what ewok song? I don't remember one. Mind you, it's been 10+ years since I saw the original ROTJ.
Does he mean something like a system call that could directly copy from file descriptor to file descriptor?
I beleive so, or something like it. I'm thinking that simple requests could be recognised as normal file requeses and just handed off to the filesystem, with the web server `root' somehow configured (/proc/.../web_root or somesuch, probably).
That's been discussed to death many times in the past. I believe the concensus was it just isn't worth it: the bulk of the package is in the drivers, not the architectures. Hmmm, someone with access to the sources correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the code for all the archs put together is smaller than the core+net+fs (and I'm not including specific protocols or file systems).
Where does that saying come from and what exactly does it mean? I know it means you're talking utter rubbish, but I'm curious about it's more specific meaning and origins.
Is it just me, or does anybody else who reads UF get reminded of iCan't interent?
On topic: not a bad idea. I think I'll see about sending the FSF some money anyway (can't say when or how much, but I mean RSN); I've always wanted to.
What if the infertility is/becomes a recessive trait, and is adjacent to a very positive gene?
Don't know about being next to a very positive gene, but that situation is already very common (look at all the infertile people, IVF is a booming business last I heard). Infertility can only propagate as a recessive gene. If it happens to get re-enforced, that individual will be infertile. Oh, they had some really good traits? that's what having more than one zygote is for (along with population growth in general).
To sum up, I don't think you have to worry too much in the long run.
Instead, it is co-operation that is the way forward, NOT competition.
Almost, it's competition and co-operation. Read Earth, by David Brin. That book goes over that meme quite nicely (probably could do with more) along with many others. Otherwise, I agree with you, co-operation is just as important as competition. Hmm, I think Brin stated that you can't have one without the other in a successful system.
Copyright there is at least partically to do with preventing other people's legitimate efforts/research/et al being claimed as someone else's.
No, that's honesty you're thinking of. Copyright prevents all copying, properly accredited or not (hence the `fair use' exceptions). See ipnot (I just read it myself)
[XFree86] isn't even restricted by the sort of limitations in the GPL.
And this makes it better? Not in my (or many others) opinion. I seem to remeber seeing on the XFree86 website a comment that they would have liked to release XFree86 under GPL but couldn't, due to licence restrictions. Hmm, seems XFree86 licencing isn't so unrestricted after all.
Even if I'm wrong about the XFree86 people's desires, they still can't release XFree86 under GPL.
It's not just you, but I would say there are probably two things that happened:
1. Many fence sitters got shaken up and settled on how they feel, and are thus more vocal (pretty much like dropping a crystal into a super-saturated solution), and some that thought `Open-Source' is okey got there eyes opened as to what's really going on, and changed their minds.
2. The die-hared anti-GNU types haven't shown up yet.
What did Stallman write the original gcc on? There was no Linux back in '83. The hypocrisy in Stallman's position is that he chose to use closed source OSes to achieve his goal -- publicizing his idea of Free Software by making tools people would want to use; now he thinks it's immoral for the rest of us to work with closed source stuff to achieve our own goals.
And what was he supposed to write gcc on? His own unix? With what compiler? Richard did not have a choice of whether to use free software or not to develop gcc. RMS never said that it's wrong to use non-free software when there's no choice, only when there is a choice does ethics come into it.
Now there is a choice, I bet RMS is using either Linux or Hurd to do his work, and look at that, he has a choice of two GPLed OSes to work on, both usin GPLed tools (Xwindows is an exception, but it's almost free and where's the choice?). I see no hypocracy.
Funny, I understood your `typo' (ie that defining is a big deal) to mean that Apple feals it's important and needs to be done (hence a big deal), rather than too hard/undesirable.
Back to the old half a glass of water problem, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
On the otherhand, I tend to panic whenever I encounter either a spider deamon or a cyber deamon (unless they're under a crusher, or fighting each other).
I think that in stating that "GLIBC 2.1 is the standard", Quinlan was meaning that gblic 2.1 will be used as the basis of what libc.so must provide. ie what functions are exported and what they do (ie glibc 2.1's functionality will be used as the standard, not glibc 2.1 itself). This means that so long as all of glibc 2.1's functionality is provided, any libc can be substitued, even (shudder) M$libc 6.66 :P.
It would be the height of stupidity to specify an actuall library version. Instead, as is done for ANSI C in general, the functionality of the library should be specified. This nicely allows for future growth. Anything new will just be extensions and can eventually be folded back into the standard once those extensions have `stabilized' as such.
I remember you from the OpenDos mailing list on DJ Delorie's server. For me, those were the days. Oh the heady excitement, a free(ish) open source dos! Still got od701 on a cdrom.
*sigh* unfortunatly, that's rather impossible. For one, I was seven when I first saw SW in '78 (I think it came around for a second summer, or was still there), I had absolutly no idea what to expect (the only SciFi shows I'd seen before were Space 1999, The Six Million Dollar Man, and Star Trek (and not much of that, either). Now, I've seen all three (SW, ESB, ROTJ) several times, including the revamps (hated the modification to the saarlak (sp?) pit (that blasted Dune ripoff worm, bletch)), read the novelizations and 4.5 of the extra novels. So, unfortunatly, the only thing that will come as a supprise will be the actual story line (even the lightstaff wont be a supprise, unfortunatly, but thanks to a previous poster for the name of the weapon, I couldn't think of the word `staff' when I saw the piccy (my wife's women's mag)).
Still, I plan on going and enjoying the movie, with no, or minimal, spoilers!
Doesn't stop it from being pathetic.
5 years?!? How about 15 years! I distincly remember seeing an optical mouse (with that funky mouse pad) back in 83-84 in Computerland (Medicine Hat, Alta). Can't remember what it was attached to, though.
Now, that is one cool idea, especially for setting up a machine for people coming from Windows. I don't need it myself as I've got myself and my family used to just logging out and turning off the monitor (in fact, the power switch is taped in: little fingers:).
My parents are talking about getting a machine, and mom's making noises about Linux (due to my comments). Depending on what she wants, I just might wind up using something like this when/if she gets me to set it up. Thanks.
Micro black holes don't live long (1s I believe), but they spontaniously form at a very high rate TMK. Hmmm... could still be usefull if harnessed.
Ouch, and doen't a shotgun do more damage than a similar sized ball? Blowing up an asteroid is not the solution. Redirecting it might help.
According to the book (ESB), Lukes stump was cauterized. Anyway, if a lightsaber leaves scorch marks on metal objects (the metal posts in ESB), I can't imagine it not cauterizing a wound (not necessarily perfectly, though).
BTW, what ewok song? I don't remember one. Mind you, it's been 10+ years since I saw the original ROTJ.
That's been discussed to death many times in the past. I believe the concensus was it just isn't worth it: the bulk of the package is in the drivers, not the architectures. Hmmm, someone with access to the sources correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the code for all the archs put together is smaller than the core+net+fs (and I'm not including specific protocols or file systems).
Where does that saying come from and what exactly does it mean? I know it means you're talking utter rubbish, but I'm curious about it's more specific meaning and origins.
On topic: not a bad idea. I think I'll see about sending the FSF some money anyway (can't say when or how much, but I mean RSN); I've always wanted to.
That's the only real way an infertility gene can wipe out a whole population. Chances? Slim, but there.
Don't know about being next to a very positive gene, but that situation is already very common (look at all the infertile people, IVF is a booming business last I heard). Infertility can only propagate as a recessive gene. If it happens to get re-enforced, that individual will be infertile. Oh, they had some really good traits? that's what having more than one zygote is for (along with population growth in general).
To sum up, I don't think you have to worry too much in the long run.
Almost, it's competition and co-operation. Read Earth, by David Brin. That book goes over that meme quite nicely (probably could do with more) along with many others. Otherwise, I agree with you, co-operation is just as important as competition. Hmm, I think Brin stated that you can't have one without the other in a successful system.
No, that's honesty you're thinking of. Copyright prevents all copying, properly accredited or not (hence the `fair use' exceptions). See ipnot (I just read it myself)
And this makes it better? Not in my (or many others) opinion. I seem to remeber seeing on the XFree86 website a comment that they would have liked to release XFree86 under GPL but couldn't, due to licence restrictions. Hmm, seems XFree86 licencing isn't so unrestricted after all.
Even if I'm wrong about the XFree86 people's desires, they still can't release XFree86 under GPL.
1. Many fence sitters got shaken up and settled on how they feel, and are thus more vocal (pretty much like dropping a crystal into a super-saturated solution), and some that thought `Open-Source' is okey got there eyes opened as to what's really going on, and changed their minds.
2. The die-hared anti-GNU types haven't shown up yet.
And what was he supposed to write gcc on? His own unix? With what compiler? Richard did not have a choice of whether to use free software or not to develop gcc. RMS never said that it's wrong to use non-free software when there's no choice, only when there is a choice does ethics come into it.
Now there is a choice, I bet RMS is using either Linux or Hurd to do his work, and look at that, he has a choice of two GPLed OSes to work on, both usin GPLed tools (Xwindows is an exception, but it's almost free and where's the choice?). I see no hypocracy.
Back to the old half a glass of water problem, I guess.
It makes a novel much more interesting and memorable if you can `hear' it (IMHO).