EVERYONE else had GUI's 10 years before Microsoft. This even includes UNIX.
Unix GUIs were good for running xterms and Emacs. When I started using Linux in 1999, a lot of the programs were still using toolkits that predated Motif and were inferior to Windows 3.1.
In any case, this is completely bogus. X appeared in 1984 and Windows 1.0 in 1985. For firmly established GUIs, X11 appeared in 1987, Windows 3.0 appeared in 1990, and Windows 3.1 appeared in 1992. There's not ten years in there.
They're talking about killing us all in a massive holy war and taking over the world. There are limits on what is acceptable speech, and I'm certain most would agree that talking like this is not acceptable.
Then why isn't anyone reacting to the right-wing people who want the same thing, or is it all right to kill Arabs and have white people take over the world, but not the other way around?
In particular, how Linux treats loadable kernel modules. If you load a kernel module that does not explicity state that it is GPLed you start to see messages in the log like "AHH! Proprietary software! The kernel is TAINTED! I'm melting!!!!"
If you decide to install a direct brain-computer connector in your skull, and start getting headaches, the first thing a doctor is going to tell you is to take it. The reason is not because your doctor has anything against it, but the alien equipment makes the problem significantly more complex, he's not familiar with the equipment, and it's quite likely the cause of the problem
The same thing is true of proprietary modules. If it's an open source module, and you report a bug on the kernel, the kernel maintainers are likely to be familiar with it and can at least look at the code to see how it works with other stuff. A proprietary module, OTOH, makes it basically impossible to debug the kernel, and historically has been the cause of many, many kernel problems. Thus the kernel maintainers don't want to deal with it, not because it's proprietary per se, but because they can't fix it.
Because they have an account on your computer for some reason or other. Because they handed you some files to keep for them and you didn't go digging through them.
In the U.S. the court can order you to provide encryption keys and if you do not you will be held in contempt of the court. This usually means the judge puts you in jail until you decide to provide the keys. To me(IANAL) it seems like the above just formalises the practice.
But there's a difference. Courts are there in part to act as an oversight over the police. Only a court can offer a search warrant, not the police acting alone.
Do you know what happens when the military uses violence to stop rioters? Ever heard of the Boston Massacre or Kent State Massacre? It doesn't matter how justified the violence the military uses is, it almost always produces backlash against the military and the causes the military supported.
The point of riot control is frequently to silence the people. It's way too often used against peaceful crowds, people who may be upset but haven't committed any violence or vandalism. The people could go home and survive; but perhaps they don't want the epitath to the life to be "Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:/Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard." (W.H. Auden, The Unknown Citizen).
Those lists would save me an awful lot of money calling people who are virtually guaranteed to not buy anything.
Because they say that 90% of people who buy something over telemarketing say no the first time. Having worked at one briefly, it was pretty clear that the guy who was getting two sales an hour was doing something about all those people who were refusing the rest of us (who were doing a sale a day.)
In any case, the guy who has your phone number after you, or your kids, or your spouse, may make a different option.
So if you lose one CPU to some psychopath with a bucket of water, the other one keeps runnning, and your system stays intact.
More likely than a psychopath with a bucket of water is a leaky roof or even a flood, that's likely to take out both CPUs if they're under the same roof.
There's no such thing as a system that doesn't crash, ever; and if you don't agree, let me at it with a bucket of water, and I'll demonstrate.
We've solved the problem of MTBFs measured in years; use multiple systems. Given that redundant cheap hardware has largely beat out expensive reliable hardward, nothing the OS can do will change that.
It's only 70 years, for what that's worth. And why does he think his grandkids will own anything; it looks to me unless he's got a sweet contract, PCMag and friends will own everything.
To be pedantic, no expired copyrights were reinstated by the Sonny Bono Copyright Act; only copyrights still in effect were extended. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act is the act that returned many copyrights, foreign only, to newer works that fell out of copyright basically because their creators weren't able to deal with the complex (and foreign) American copyright system at the time.
Why would anyone need a grayscale video codec? Codecs usually seperate out the chromatic and greyscale information and encode the chromatic at lower resolution already, and a unchanging chromatic layer should be encodable in a minimal number of bits anyway.
And if you look at the history of changes for the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you'll find that a lot of the articles that were percieved as anti-Catholic were changed after the 1911 edition. But of course, there, it's not as simple to see as looking at a webpage.
Now you might claim that the people who rely on Stable are in this privileged position because of all the people who use SID or Testing. You'd be right. But who cares? SID users are happy on the cutting edge, Testing users are happy with the less wild and wooly pace, Stable users are happy with the tried and true. Everyone wins.
You're right; but no one's saying that Testing and Unstable are evil and that Stable is superior and holy. People appreciate what Testing and Unstable bring to the table.
They don't depend on us for medical care, if we withdrew it, they'd go on much as they have before modern medicine was available.
Yeah, and die young and suffer horrible diseases.
They pay for it too,
But they don't produce medicine or medical research. Without the larger society, they never would have discovered hygine, much less penicillin and the vast variety of wonder drugs and cures. People from my society discovered that
They don't have to fight, you say? I know, I know. Everyone is nervous that Iraq will invade, and the Amish, well, they'll be sitting ducks.
The only reason Iraq doesn't invade is because they're in the middle of a well-armed society. If our society self-destructed, a bunch of New Yorkers would be coming over with weapons to take their food, land and women, like has been done for centuries. There's always some barbarian tribe willing to come in to take undefended spoils, like the Goths sacking Rome.
Those that are disruptive (which happens very rarely) are usually shunned as I understand it. As long as they're willing to put up with that, nothing more happens.
How long would you stick around here if no one responded to you? How would you respond if everyone started shunning you in real-life? Shunning, if complete, is a terribly effective punishment on a tribal creature like humans and nobody can tolerate very much of it. Our society considers it okay to lock people up in cages, but to completely isolate them without very good causes is cruel and unusual punishment.
From being in a society where the emphasis is on doing things that *do* work to benefit human beings, to being in one (the mainstream one) where the specific intention is to emphasise doing things which are detrimental to human beings.
If our society is detrimental to human beings, why do they depend on us for medical care? They get their idyllic society at the cost of being dependent on our society. They don't have to fight, because we provide the military that protects them. And anyone too disruptive can be exiled to the real world. They need us to keep their world running.
Suppose you have two sixteen-bit variables and you have to swap the variables which have the values 26'459 and 12'371?
hint: The sum is 38'830. Think about that compared to 32'767.
It's not just sixteen bits - that's just one example - it'll happen anytime you force an overflow error for the bounds of the variables.
In a system where you can assume two's-complement numbers and normal wrapping semantics, that doesn't matter. It will just work.
Of course, technically even in C, you can't assume that for signed integers. (Check the recent gcc at gcc.gnu.org archives for the latest flame war if you don't believe that.) But it will work for unsigned integers.
Because nobody has decided to sue in New York over the issue of a soundtrack being copyrighted. This whole concept of sound recordings being under copyright seems new to everyone, or the New York case never would have made it to court.
Disney would be out of business if they did not keep pushing the copyright extensions out. Seriously, how many decades has it been since they have done anything original that was sucessful?
Honestly, their series of animated movies in the early 90s, Little Mermaid, Beauty and Beast, Aladdin, and the Lion King, were great hits. They may be based on fairy tales, but so were many of the early Disney movies.
And a poor tool maker blames his users. The number of deaths due to automobile accidents has gone down incrediably since the 1950s, and it's not due to better drivers. Quality tools do make a difference.
I bet these DVDs don't even have that annoying FBI warning since some of them are in the public domain.
Nope, all of them I've seen have an FBI warning. Some have gone so far as to tell you it's illegal to loan the movie to someone else.
Re:All soundtracks are copyrighted
on
Attack of the $1 DVDs
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Playback of silent movies on a DVD player needs a soundtrack.
But that soundtrack doesn't need sound. It's trivial to make an uncopyrighted silent soundtrack for a DVD.
All sound recordings published from the invention of the phonograph until February 15, 1972, are restricted under state law copyright until December 31, 2067
Guess what; as far as anyone knows, this applies to the soundtrack for any movie. And you always have the option of not shipping to New York, which, as far as I know, is the only one so restricting sound recordings.
Slashdot Mirror
There was the NeWS system that Sun developed,
m l says that NeWS started in 1985, the same year as Windows 1.0 and a year after X.
http://www.postscript.org/FAQs/language/node73.ht
there were various other GUIs before that.
But any of significance?
EVERYONE else had GUI's 10 years before Microsoft. This even includes UNIX.
Unix GUIs were good for running xterms and Emacs. When I started using Linux in 1999, a lot of the programs were still using toolkits that predated Motif and were inferior to Windows 3.1.
In any case, this is completely bogus. X appeared in 1984 and Windows 1.0 in 1985. For firmly established GUIs, X11 appeared in 1987, Windows 3.0 appeared in 1990, and Windows 3.1 appeared in 1992. There's not ten years in there.
They're talking about killing us all in a massive holy war and taking over the world. There are limits on what is acceptable speech, and I'm certain most would agree that talking like this is not acceptable.
Then why isn't anyone reacting to the right-wing people who want the same thing, or is it all right to kill Arabs and have white people take over the world, but not the other way around?
In particular, how Linux treats loadable kernel modules. If you load a kernel module that does not explicity state that it is GPLed you start to see messages in the log like "AHH! Proprietary software! The kernel is TAINTED! I'm melting!!!!"
If you decide to install a direct brain-computer connector in your skull, and start getting headaches, the first thing a doctor is going to tell you is to take it. The reason is not because your doctor has anything against it, but the alien equipment makes the problem significantly more complex, he's not familiar with the equipment, and it's quite likely the cause of the problem
The same thing is true of proprietary modules. If it's an open source module, and you report a bug on the kernel, the kernel maintainers are likely to be familiar with it and can at least look at the code to see how it works with other stuff. A proprietary module, OTOH, makes it basically impossible to debug the kernel, and historically has been the cause of many, many kernel problems. Thus the kernel maintainers don't want to deal with it, not because it's proprietary per se, but because they can't fix it.
Because they have an account on your computer for some reason or other. Because they handed you some files to keep for them and you didn't go digging through them.
In the U.S. the court can order you to provide encryption keys and if you do not you will be held in contempt of the court. This usually means the judge puts you in jail until you decide to provide the keys. To me(IANAL) it seems like the above just formalises the practice.
But there's a difference. Courts are there in part to act as an oversight over the police. Only a court can offer a search warrant, not the police acting alone.
Do you know what happens when the military uses violence to stop rioters? Ever heard of the Boston Massacre or Kent State Massacre? It doesn't matter how justified the violence the military uses is, it almost always produces backlash against the military and the causes the military supported.
The point of riot control is frequently to silence the people. It's way too often used against peaceful crowds, people who may be upset but haven't committed any violence or vandalism. The people could go home and survive; but perhaps they don't want the epitath to the life to be "Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:/Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard." (W.H. Auden, The Unknown Citizen).
Those lists would save me an awful lot of money calling people who are virtually guaranteed to not buy anything.
Because they say that 90% of people who buy something over telemarketing say no the first time. Having worked at one briefly, it was pretty clear that the guy who was getting two sales an hour was doing something about all those people who were refusing the rest of us (who were doing a sale a day.)
In any case, the guy who has your phone number after you, or your kids, or your spouse, may make a different option.
So if you lose one CPU to some psychopath with a bucket of water, the other one keeps runnning, and your system stays intact.
More likely than a psychopath with a bucket of water is a leaky roof or even a flood, that's likely to take out both CPUs if they're under the same roof.
There's no such thing as a system that doesn't crash, ever; and if you don't agree, let me at it with a bucket of water, and I'll demonstrate.
We've solved the problem of MTBFs measured in years; use multiple systems. Given that redundant cheap hardware has largely beat out expensive reliable hardward, nothing the OS can do will change that.
It's only 70 years, for what that's worth. And why does he think his grandkids will own anything; it looks to me unless he's got a sweet contract, PCMag and friends will own everything.
To be pedantic, no expired copyrights were reinstated by the Sonny Bono Copyright Act; only copyrights still in effect were extended. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act is the act that returned many copyrights, foreign only, to newer works that fell out of copyright basically because their creators weren't able to deal with the complex (and foreign) American copyright system at the time.
Why would anyone need a grayscale video codec? Codecs usually seperate out the chromatic and greyscale information and encode the chromatic at lower resolution already, and a unchanging chromatic layer should be encodable in a minimal number of bits anyway.
Good thing Britannica employed editors, not hobbyists like Wikipedia uses
Yeah. It's all right if it's propogandistic lies, as long as it's professional propoganistic lies.
And if you look at the history of changes for the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you'll find that a lot of the articles that were percieved as anti-Catholic were changed after the 1911 edition. But of course, there, it's not as simple to see as looking at a webpage.
o seph_mccabe/lies_of_britannica.html%5B/url%5D)
(Source: [url]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/j
Now you might claim that the people who rely on Stable are in this privileged position because of all the people who use SID or Testing. You'd be right. But who cares? SID users are happy on the cutting edge, Testing users are happy with the less wild and wooly pace, Stable users are happy with the tried and true. Everyone wins.
You're right; but no one's saying that Testing and Unstable are evil and that Stable is superior and holy. People appreciate what Testing and Unstable bring to the table.
They don't depend on us for medical care, if we withdrew it, they'd go on much as they have before modern medicine was available.
Yeah, and die young and suffer horrible diseases.
They pay for it too,
But they don't produce medicine or medical research. Without the larger society, they never would have discovered hygine, much less penicillin and the vast variety of wonder drugs and cures. People from my society discovered that
They don't have to fight, you say? I know, I know. Everyone is nervous that Iraq will invade, and the Amish, well, they'll be sitting ducks.
The only reason Iraq doesn't invade is because they're in the middle of a well-armed society. If our society self-destructed, a bunch of New Yorkers would be coming over with weapons to take their food, land and women, like has been done for centuries. There's always some barbarian tribe willing to come in to take undefended spoils, like the Goths sacking Rome.
Those that are disruptive (which happens very rarely) are usually shunned as I understand it. As long as they're willing to put up with that, nothing more happens.
How long would you stick around here if no one responded to you? How would you respond if everyone started shunning you in real-life? Shunning, if complete, is a terribly effective punishment on a tribal creature like humans and nobody can tolerate very much of it. Our society considers it okay to lock people up in cages, but to completely isolate them without very good causes is cruel and unusual punishment.
From being in a society where the emphasis is on doing things that *do* work to benefit human beings, to being in one (the mainstream one) where the specific intention is to emphasise doing things which are detrimental to human beings.
If our society is detrimental to human beings, why do they depend on us for medical care? They get their idyllic society at the cost of being dependent on our society. They don't have to fight, because we provide the military that protects them. And anyone too disruptive can be exiled to the real world. They need us to keep their world running.
Suppose you have two sixteen-bit variables and you have to swap the variables which have the values 26'459 and 12'371?
hint: The sum is 38'830. Think about that compared to 32'767.
It's not just sixteen bits - that's just one example - it'll happen anytime you force an overflow error for the bounds of the variables.
In a system where you can assume two's-complement numbers and normal wrapping semantics, that doesn't matter. It will just work.
Of course, technically even in C, you can't assume that for signed integers. (Check the recent gcc at gcc.gnu.org archives for the latest flame war if you don't believe that.) But it will work for unsigned integers.
Because nobody has decided to sue in New York over the issue of a soundtrack being copyrighted. This whole concept of sound recordings being under copyright seems new to everyone, or the New York case never would have made it to court.
Disney would be out of business if they did not keep pushing the copyright extensions out. Seriously, how many decades has it been since they have done anything original that was sucessful?
Honestly, their series of animated movies in the early 90s, Little Mermaid, Beauty and Beast, Aladdin, and the Lion King, were great hits. They may be based on fairy tales, but so were many of the early Disney movies.
The old Tom and Jerry cartoons aren't related to the Tom and Jerry cat and mouse cartoons. Just a coincidental use of the same name.
And a poor tool maker blames his users. The number of deaths due to automobile accidents has gone down incrediably since the 1950s, and it's not due to better drivers. Quality tools do make a difference.
I bet these DVDs don't even have that annoying FBI warning since some of them are in the public domain.
Nope, all of them I've seen have an FBI warning. Some have gone so far as to tell you it's illegal to loan the movie to someone else.
Playback of silent movies on a DVD player needs a soundtrack.
But that soundtrack doesn't need sound. It's trivial to make an uncopyrighted silent soundtrack for a DVD.
All sound recordings published from the invention of the phonograph until February 15, 1972, are restricted under state law copyright until December 31, 2067
Guess what; as far as anyone knows, this applies to the soundtrack for any movie. And you always have the option of not shipping to New York, which, as far as I know, is the only one so restricting sound recordings.