1) find some sand, grass, mud, etc., and redeem for Stone Blade Construction 1) comb the beach for pieces of slate 2) break two pieces of slate and make slate blade 3) collect wood, and create a board cutter 4) make brick slats 5) make bricks 6) make oven 7) make more bricks ...
900) make distaff 901) collect, rot, and process distaff into flax, create canvas and linen from flax on loom 902) create construction site 903) build mine, collect ore 904) make forge 905) make axe
...now you know why I quit A Tale in The Desert...
Well, unfortunately, medicine seems more geared towards keeping people who can't work anyway alive longer. So that just means more young people working harder, to pay the medical costs of the "magical medicine" that keeps geezers living forever... sounds great...
The worst they have done is run commercials aimed towards minors (parents, you have control of the remote, and the wallet).
Although, let me also say, that I see no problem with regulating, for instance, commercials aimed at minors (especially very very young minors). It is repulsive to find that some companies are targeting advertising starting at newborn age. I find no legitimate "speech" being conveyed in endless commercials between cartoons to consume consume consume. What legitimate "speech" are you really going to convey in a commercial to a child that is 1, 3, 5, 7 years old? It's disgusting.
The question is not whether certain industries have "free speech rights". They obviously do, but nobody is obliged to listen. The question is whether minors (for some definition of "minor") have "free consumption rights". Somebody who knows more about the constitution will have to reply on that. For instance, there are all sorts of activities and "consumptions" with minors in which we prohibit transactions. For instance, the sale of tobacco, alcohol, pornography, etc. Notice that this is NOT a restriction on the purchasing minor (the minor can still USE tobacco, alcohol, and pornography completely legally), it is a restriction on what can be SOLD, or in other words, regulation. I don't think "free speech" enters the discussion. Nobody's speech or expression is being abridged (although some would equate economic transactions with "speech"...i DO NOT).
This is still a legitimate question nonetheless. It still raises the issue of legitimate speech that minors would want to consume but be prohibited from consuming...matters relating to health of minors, politics regarding minors, etc. None of this I see being abridged, and none of this I expect to be present in video games or pornography. Then again, I played lots of video games and saw movies that probably would not be sold to me, and I don't think I'm any worse for it.
An interesting comparison would be Hollywood's intentional and flagrant marketing of sex and violence to minors. The video game industry thrives off a young audience, but I do not think they have done anything NEAR as repulsive as marketing and study groups with minors. The worst they have done is run commercials aimed towards minors (parents, you have control of the remote, and the wallet).
I've been ranting about the stupidity of the FHS, and/,/usr,/usr/local directories for a long time, but all I get is vacant stares and comments along the lines that I am crazy for ever wanting to store applications in their *own* directories, as opposed to littering their content horizontally over the filesystem. But now this simple idea is illustrated in a developerworks article and all of a sudden it's "obvious". argh </vent>
What??!! The car manufacturers LIED to us??! I can't believe it! You mean that technology we've had for years can reduce emissions just as much as undeveloped potential technology 5 to 10 years from now! Scandalous!
Why the hell should a video driver NOT be in the kernel? It's a driver, just like for any other hardware. The GUI proper is another issue, but I certainly think that it is reasonable to put the driver at least in the kernel (and actually for single-user desktops I would love to be able to put the GUI in the kernel, I thumb my nose at you;). Anyway, won't moving the X driver in the kernel allow X to sleep on driver calls, leading to better latency and throughput?
I sort of distate a lot of the comments that go like:
1) Users demand N 2) Microsoft delivers N 3) BUT WAIT N is theoretically "inelegant" therefore Linux is better, case closed
Face it: a GUI IS as critical as the "kernel" to the average computer user. The GUI crashing and the kernel crashing are indistinguishable from the desktop point of view.
So, with this new code, processes which are "interactive" like your X11 apps get more of the cycles they need when they need them, decreasing their latency, and making them appear to work "better."
Actually, as I understood it (which may very well be incorrectly), since X is "waking up" the applications it is X that is getting the overflowed "interactivity" and that this is a better solution than to just brute force "nice -10" X (because forcing it into a higher priority makes it look like a cpu-bound batch process, which the scheduler then increases the latency in tradeoff for throughput). Hair splitting I know.
Are there any X11 developers out there (or at least someone in the know) that can comment on the actual PLANS for XFree? So far I see several legitimate criticisms, one being the hardware access/busy waiting issue, and another being the mess that is the way XFree reads resources. When I was first introduced to X, right off the bat, the fact that it was a "special" application that had its own drivers to do direct hardware access, and the mind-boggling resource system, stood right out at me. Although X is great for many things, and although a lot of people spew hot air about it, I feel there are legitimate outstanding issues. As someone who is highly anticipating Linux kernel 2.6, and the potential for Linux on the desktop, I think these are very valid concerns.
The XFree86 page is rather spartan, and I get NO idea what the roadmap for XFree looks like.
Re:Happened in industrial revolution too
on
World of Ends
·
· Score: 1
That's interesting. I'll make sure my lobbyist mentions that to my senator during one of their "brunches".
Well, it is one thing to say that application can now obtain the version of the DLL they want if they *explicitly ask for it*. It is another thing to say that, they always and forever, until the end of time get the DLL they were "compiled against" or "packaged with". It is not clear from the article which of these two situations is the case.
The point of shared libraries is that you CAN upgrade one single library and have many applications "automatically" inherit the changes. This is how you can update a file dialog for instance, without recompiling every single one of your GUI applications. This is a Good Thing. The question then becomes "why is this shit breaking so much". The right solution is a proper combination of carefully-followed deprecation and backwards compatibility rules (preferentially married with some sort of standard version naming convention), and the ability for applications to explicitly choose the library version they want (or even better yet, runtime configuration directive that can be set by the user or administrator) in the cases that *it is known that the new shared library is not backwards compatible*.
This also in: scientists have discovered a way to use "smoke" to send "signals" over long distances! Depending on the "signature" of the "smoke", many bits of data can be sent over long distances without any wires or RF! Amazing!
This sounds like a great excuse for them not to hire somebody they have already decided they don't want. Applicant is too [ethnic|gay|fat|female|disabled|], toss them some "personality test", and "oops" I guess they didn't pass.
Wow, we can kill things specifically to embed web servers in them for public amusement. Great accomplishment. What's next, grandma? I find it rather disgusting.
neither is imaging the hard drive with a properly tweaked distro (hardware variance).
I think the point is that using imaging, while a technically superior alternative, is NOT an option due to the variance of hardware and the fact they don't have time to rip open these machines (i'm deducing this myself). A floppy-based distro would give a fast minimal install that could then be used to install more features/software if necessary.
Not to start a flame fest here, but isn't a single 'superuser' entity, which has special-case security (e.g. has automatic ownership and access to all files regardless of permissions), indicative of a mis-designed security architecture?
What about capabilities, or mandatory access controls? Or some sort of framework that incorporates root privelages, instead of setting them aside as a special case. I've never been comfortable with the idea that the security system was only for "normal" users and didn't apply to a specific user called 'root' (or id 0), which, if compromised, you are entirely hosed.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the plan to put radioactive material into the scrap metal supply chain! Brilliant idea!
Or to be more specific:
...
...now you know why I quit A Tale in The Desert...
1) find some sand, grass, mud, etc., and redeem for Stone Blade Construction
1) comb the beach for pieces of slate
2) break two pieces of slate and make slate blade
3) collect wood, and create a board cutter
4) make brick slats
5) make bricks
6) make oven
7) make more bricks
900) make distaff
901) collect, rot, and process distaff into flax, create canvas and linen from flax on loom
902) create construction site
903) build mine, collect ore
904) make forge
905) make axe
The question is not whether certain industries have "free speech rights". They obviously do, but nobody is obliged to listen. The question is whether minors (for some definition of "minor") have "free consumption rights". Somebody who knows more about the constitution will have to reply on that. For instance, there are all sorts of activities and "consumptions" with minors in which we prohibit transactions. For instance, the sale of tobacco, alcohol, pornography, etc. Notice that this is NOT a restriction on the purchasing minor (the minor can still USE tobacco, alcohol, and pornography completely legally), it is a restriction on what can be SOLD, or in other words, regulation. I don't think "free speech" enters the discussion. Nobody's speech or expression is being abridged (although some would equate economic transactions with "speech"...i DO NOT).
This is still a legitimate question nonetheless. It still raises the issue of legitimate speech that minors would want to consume but be prohibited from consuming...matters relating to health of minors, politics regarding minors, etc. None of this I see being abridged, and none of this I expect to be present in video games or pornography. Then again, I played lots of video games and saw movies that probably would not be sold to me, and I don't think I'm any worse for it.
An interesting comparison would be Hollywood's intentional and flagrant marketing of sex and violence to minors. The video game industry thrives off a young audience, but I do not think they have done anything NEAR as repulsive as marketing and study groups with minors. The worst they have done is run commercials aimed towards minors (parents, you have control of the remote, and the wallet).
Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads...
I've been ranting about the stupidity of the FHS, and /,/usr,/usr/local directories for a long time, but all I get is vacant stares and comments along the lines that I am crazy for ever wanting to store applications in their *own* directories, as opposed to littering their content horizontally over the filesystem. But now this simple idea is illustrated in a developerworks article and all of a sudden it's "obvious". argh </vent>
What??!! The car manufacturers LIED to us??! I can't believe it! You mean that technology we've had for years can reduce emissions just as much as undeveloped potential technology 5 to 10 years from now! Scandalous!
Have you tried Gold Bond Medicated Kernel Powder?
(except for China)
Why the hell should a video driver NOT be in the kernel? It's a driver, just like for any other hardware. The GUI proper is another issue, but I certainly think that it is reasonable to put the driver at least in the kernel (and actually for single-user desktops I would love to be able to put the GUI in the kernel, I thumb my nose at you ;). Anyway, won't moving the X driver in the kernel allow X to sleep on driver calls, leading to better latency and throughput?
I sort of distate a lot of the comments that go like:
1) Users demand N
2) Microsoft delivers N
3) BUT WAIT N is theoretically "inelegant" therefore Linux is better, case closed
Face it: a GUI IS as critical as the "kernel" to the average computer user. The GUI crashing and the kernel crashing are indistinguishable from the desktop point of view.
Are there any X11 developers out there (or at least someone in the know) that can comment on the actual PLANS for XFree? So far I see several legitimate criticisms, one being the hardware access/busy waiting issue, and another being the mess that is the way XFree reads resources. When I was first introduced to X, right off the bat, the fact that it was a "special" application that had its own drivers to do direct hardware access, and the mind-boggling resource system, stood right out at me. Although X is great for many things, and although a lot of people spew hot air about it, I feel there are legitimate outstanding issues. As someone who is highly anticipating Linux kernel 2.6, and the potential for Linux on the desktop, I think these are very valid concerns.
The XFree86 page is rather spartan, and I get NO idea what the roadmap for XFree looks like.
That's interesting. I'll make sure my lobbyist mentions that to my senator during one of their "brunches".
Well, it is one thing to say that application can now obtain the version of the DLL they want if they *explicitly ask for it*. It is another thing to say that, they always and forever, until the end of time get the DLL they were "compiled against" or "packaged with". It is not clear from the article which of these two situations is the case.
The point of shared libraries is that you CAN upgrade one single library and have many applications "automatically" inherit the changes. This is how you can update a file dialog for instance, without recompiling every single one of your GUI applications. This is a Good Thing. The question then becomes "why is this shit breaking so much". The right solution is a proper combination of carefully-followed deprecation and backwards compatibility rules (preferentially married with some sort of standard version naming convention), and the ability for applications to explicitly choose the library version they want (or even better yet, runtime configuration directive that can be set by the user or administrator) in the cases that *it is known that the new shared library is not backwards compatible*.
This also in: scientists have discovered a way to use "smoke" to send "signals" over long distances! Depending on the "signature" of the "smoke", many bits of data can be sent over long distances without any wires or RF! Amazing!
This sounds like a great excuse for them not to hire somebody they have already decided they don't want. Applicant is too [ethnic|gay|fat|female|disabled|], toss them some "personality test", and "oops" I guess they didn't pass.
Wow, we can kill things specifically to embed web servers in them for public amusement. Great accomplishment. What's next, grandma? I find it rather disgusting.
neither is imaging the hard drive with a properly tweaked distro (hardware variance).
I think the point is that using imaging, while a technically superior alternative, is NOT an option due to the variance of hardware and the fact they don't have time to rip open these machines (i'm deducing this myself). A floppy-based distro would give a fast minimal install that could then be used to install more features/software if necessary.
Kernel Traffic
Huzzah!
Now give me a cookie.
1) brainwash the world into demanding "anti-bacterial" properties in every product
2) develop antibiotic resistent bacteria antibiotic
3) $$$
In Soviet Russia, bad joke repeats YOU!
Not to start a flame fest here, but isn't a single 'superuser' entity, which has special-case security (e.g. has automatic ownership and access to all files regardless of permissions), indicative of a mis-designed security architecture?
What about capabilities, or mandatory access controls? Or some sort of framework that incorporates root privelages, instead of setting them aside as a special case. I've never been comfortable with the idea that the security system was only for "normal" users and didn't apply to a specific user called 'root' (or id 0), which, if compromised, you are entirely hosed.
...it got "weird", and now the three electrons are not talking to each other.