Did anyone else come across this same/. article saying "Microsoft Buys Rare Sorta", and now it says "Microsoft Buys Rare". Did the editors actually edit? That's it, I'm breaking open my dooms-day beer stash -- hell, it can't hurt.
you know, sometimes i think what's keeping slashdot from being a superb news site is that it doesn't post enough inane shit -- but then something like this comes around
wow! every single comment posted so far praises redhat, or at least vindicates it against false accusations. not even a hint of a troll joking around with devoted users! now that's quite a backlash!
... despite all the math that seems consistent, don't both the future and the past not exist? I mean, the futures isn't yet, and the past isn't anymore. I wonder how I could express that in a formula?
The floppy is still a very essential part of computer science departments in colleges across the nation. If the department opts against online submitting of assignments it is forced to the floppy.
Well, of course, there's DirectFB: a system to render directly to the framebuffer, and using hardware acceleration when available. While still in completion for workstation window systems, it offers excellent performance and a well thought out infrastructure. But since it is geared toward embedded systems it will be a while before it has drivers covering the majority of video cards (though it is doing quite well as it is), has multi-application support (working on it) and a complete API. Still, worth a look at --especially since it already has a Gtk port. It is for those who "prefer alpha transparency to network transparency". They get my vote, and development support for the next Unix windowing system. Quartz, eat our dust.
Alright, maybe that was too pithy a comment. Here is why I don't like my cube (along with what I like about it):
First off, it cost me an arm and a leg (as mentioned earlier).
But I no longer feel that pain. I got a pretty Studio Display on it, and was in awe of OS X . . . but couldn't commit myself to it - so I put Linux/ppc on it (I now am running some sort of mutt between Linux/ppc, YellowDog and Mandrake) But it seems Linux just can't be very fast on it. Not taking advantage of Altivec maybe? Or was OS X just as slow?
Anyway, under Linux I have no control over the backlight (I put it on a resolution it doesn't support to shut my monitor "off" but those glowing buttons stay on alllllll night, no fun in bedroom) It's total silence (apart from the hd) is amazing though.
Still, since I'm doing framebuffer programming I have to work with what I have (aty128) and there's really no way to put a Matrox G400 (very open and clear specs on that, not so on ATI cards) And I really don't feel like shelling out the cash for a VGA-DVI and then a DVI-ADC adapter. Not so much problems with the cube, but with my own setup.
Nevertheless, I'd like to part with it and get something faster with Linux, cheaper overall, and with hardware that can be changed. I knew I'd run into this when I bought the thing, so I guess I'm just a total idiot.:)
Yes, i was a sucker, and bought the G4 Cube. I deserve what I got for being such an idiot. I wonder what my chances are of selling it for a fortune to some avid Mac collector years down the road? I can picture it now: "Oh, you have a rare G4 Cube?" "You bet!" "It's an Apple screw-up, I'll give ya two bucks."
this is classic. this article is really about how the editors hate our story submissions, and how they really don't care about the news anymore. but that's nothing new either. so it's a double repeat!
unplug EVERYTHING but the power. i convinced my mom that my computer wakes up whenever a person sits in front of it. turned out, sitting in the chair made right vibrations to move the mouse just the *tiniest* bit -- effectively waking up the machine.
This seems like the kind of article that will produce a happy sum of heated religious/scientific argument - even though it need not, so I feel like putting my two cents in.
My problems with this very old "new" theory:
1.) Not enough mass. The universe needs approximately 10x more mass in order to slow its expansion down to a stop. Does this theory account for that?
2.) How does it start up again? Even should it collapse, and we all turn into a black holish sort of thing, what starts the process up again? Relativity states outright that it would be impossible.
3.) Its a law in physics that whatever is contracted and expanded repetatively will gain heat. e.g. a metal bar bend backwards and forwards. So if the universe has been expanding a collapsing forever . . . where's all the infinite heat? It certainly isn't here in New England.
Furthermore, for all those who believe they can crush religion with science, you must first establish that the universe has/can do this more than once. Then you must establish that it has/can do this infinitely. And even then, that means nothing about God - but it certainly would be interesting. Aristotle in fact held that the universe did something along these lines, and called it an "emission" from his deity (the first mover).
So really exploring these ideas doesn't touch religion, though perhaps some of the people doing research on this think it does, and mostly likely many people who read this will think the same. I'm just upset with it since it seems to be ignoring science. If anyone can enlighten me how this theory accounts for my problems, please respond, or just mod me down.;)
I've heard talk about this theory for years now, what's so new about it? And how does it explain temperature? When things expand and collapse (including universes) they produce heat, right? If this has been happening forever, then how come there isn't infinite heat?!? Am I oversimplifying this?
yes, mr. troll, that is the definition. i believe my use fits behind door #3 (situational irony): if yellowdog uses realplayer for an introduction to their OS, it is the exact opposite of what one would expect - that yellowdog does not fully support realplayer.
i took english once too. (though i must have skipped the class when they taught capitalized letters)
this comment is just as insightful and funny as the empty blurb on the main page. so in *theory* this should boost my karma. why are my theories always wrong?
don't know if this is april fools or not. don't care. point is, this will happen eventually whether kazaa be the perpetrator or not. what i want to know is, disregarding whether the user gives his permission (article claims it must be given), can this really be a bad thing? and how can it be a good thing?
OK, OK, ENOUGH!!! I mean, now it's impossible to have a discussion about anything! NO ONE is going to bother reading down stories like this. NO ONE is going to moderate, NO ONE CARES ANYMORE! geez, i goin' back to bed.
why do all these OS's have "secrets" books? do they intentionally leave all this information out of their manuals to get extra mullah from the "secret book publishers"? i never got this idea. the only real excuse is the patronization of the user: "oh THAT feature? don't document it, because the user would have to be smart like US to use it." i saw some attempts of making linux secret books. they fell flat on their face. because you need to be a friggin' rocket scientist to use linux at all. once you're a rocket scientist, there are no secrets left. i guess they could write a good linux secret book: "Chapter One: There is only one secret in Linux - that if you bought this book, Linux is not for you!!"
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone else come across this same /. article saying "Microsoft Buys Rare Sorta", and now it says "Microsoft Buys Rare". Did the editors actually edit? That's it, I'm breaking open my dooms-day beer stash -- hell, it can't hurt.
I thought it read "Microsoft Buys Rare Sofa". Just the thought of Lazy-Boy XP makes me shudder.
Chia pets! Don't ask me why I keep commenting on a story that doesn't interest me, because I don't know.
Heh, I first read "Caring for Your Parents in Unnatural Environments".
you know, sometimes i think what's keeping slashdot from being a superb news site is that it doesn't post enough inane shit -- but then something like this comes around
while i'll grant this matters, i doubt it's news. . . god bless you!
wow! every single comment posted so far praises redhat, or at least vindicates it against false accusations. not even a hint of a troll joking around with devoted users! now that's quite a backlash!
... despite all the math that seems consistent, don't both the future and the past not exist? I mean, the futures isn't yet, and the past isn't anymore. I wonder how I could express that in a formula?
The floppy is still a very essential part of computer science departments in colleges across the nation. If the department opts against online submitting of assignments it is forced to the floppy.
Read up and test it out!
Well, of course, there's DirectFB: a system to render directly to the framebuffer, and using hardware acceleration when available. While still in completion for workstation window systems, it offers excellent performance and a well thought out infrastructure. But since it is geared toward embedded systems it will be a while before it has drivers covering the majority of video cards (though it is doing quite well as it is), has multi-application support (working on it) and a complete API. Still, worth a look at --especially since it already has a Gtk port. It is for those who "prefer alpha transparency to network transparency". They get my vote, and development support for the next Unix windowing system. Quartz, eat our dust.
Alright, maybe that was too pithy a comment. Here is why I don't like my cube (along with what I like about it):
:)
First off, it cost me an arm and a leg (as mentioned earlier).
But I no longer feel that pain. I got a pretty Studio Display on it, and was in awe of OS X . . . but couldn't commit myself to it - so I put Linux/ppc on it (I now am running some sort of mutt between Linux/ppc, YellowDog and Mandrake) But it seems Linux just can't be very fast on it. Not taking advantage of Altivec maybe? Or was OS X just as slow?
Anyway, under Linux I have no control over the backlight (I put it on a resolution it doesn't support to shut my monitor "off" but those glowing buttons stay on alllllll night, no fun in bedroom) It's total silence (apart from the hd) is amazing though.
Still, since I'm doing framebuffer programming I have to work with what I have (aty128) and there's really no way to put a Matrox G400 (very open and clear specs on that, not so on ATI cards) And I really don't feel like shelling out the cash for a VGA-DVI and then a DVI-ADC adapter. Not so much problems with the cube, but with my own setup.
Nevertheless, I'd like to part with it and get something faster with Linux, cheaper overall, and with hardware that can be changed. I knew I'd run into this when I bought the thing, so I guess I'm just a total idiot.
Yes, i was a sucker, and bought the G4 Cube. I deserve what I got for being such an idiot. I wonder what my chances are of selling it for a fortune to some avid Mac collector years down the road? I can picture it now:
"Oh, you have a rare G4 Cube?"
"You bet!"
"It's an Apple screw-up, I'll give ya two bucks."
sounds like someone hasn't encountered his "Personal CmdrTaco Saviour". He loves us all, do not love faith, my son.
this is classic. this article is really about how the editors hate our story submissions, and how they really don't care about the news anymore. but that's nothing new either. so it's a double repeat!
unplug EVERYTHING but the power. i convinced my mom that my computer wakes up whenever a person sits in front of it. turned out, sitting in the chair made right vibrations to move the mouse just the *tiniest* bit -- effectively waking up the machine.
This seems like the kind of article that will produce a happy sum of heated religious/scientific argument - even though it need not, so I feel like putting my two cents in.
;)
My problems with this very old "new" theory:
1.) Not enough mass. The universe needs approximately 10x more mass in order to slow its expansion down to a stop. Does this theory account for that?
2.) How does it start up again? Even should it collapse, and we all turn into a black holish sort of thing, what starts the process up again? Relativity states outright that it would be impossible.
3.) Its a law in physics that whatever is contracted and expanded repetatively will gain heat. e.g. a metal bar bend backwards and forwards. So if the universe has been expanding a collapsing forever . . . where's all the infinite heat? It certainly isn't here in New England.
Furthermore, for all those who believe they can crush religion with science, you must first establish that the universe has/can do this more than once. Then you must establish that it has/can do this infinitely. And even then, that means nothing about God - but it certainly would be interesting. Aristotle in fact held that the universe did something along these lines, and called it an "emission" from his deity (the first mover).
So really exploring these ideas doesn't touch religion, though perhaps some of the people doing research on this think it does, and mostly likely many people who read this will think the same. I'm just upset with it since it seems to be ignoring science. If anyone can enlighten me how this theory accounts for my problems, please respond, or just mod me down.
I've heard talk about this theory for years now, what's so new about it? And how does it explain temperature? When things expand and collapse (including universes) they produce heat, right? If this has been happening forever, then how come there isn't infinite heat?!? Am I oversimplifying this?
yes, mr. troll, that is the definition. i believe my use fits behind door #3 (situational irony): if yellowdog uses realplayer for an introduction to their OS, it is the exact opposite of what one would expect - that yellowdog does not fully support realplayer.
i took english once too. (though i must have skipped the class when they taught capitalized letters)
That's ironic that they're using RealPlayer. I've used YellowDog for a year now and still can't get a stable linuxppc version of it to run.
well, i'm about 5'7 dark brown eyes . . .
this comment is just as insightful and funny as the empty blurb on the main page. so in *theory* this should boost my karma. why are my theories always wrong?
don't know if this is april fools or not. don't care. point is, this will happen eventually whether kazaa be the perpetrator or not. what i want to know is, disregarding whether the user gives his permission (article claims it must be given), can this really be a bad thing? and how can it be a good thing?
OK, OK, ENOUGH!!! I mean, now it's impossible to have a discussion about anything! NO ONE is going to bother reading down stories like this. NO ONE is going to moderate, NO ONE CARES ANYMORE! geez, i goin' back to bed.
why do all these OS's have "secrets" books? do they intentionally leave all this information out of their manuals to get extra mullah from the "secret book publishers"? i never got this idea. the only real excuse is the patronization of the user: "oh THAT feature? don't document it, because the user would have to be smart like US to use it." i saw some attempts of making linux secret books. they fell flat on their face. because you need to be a friggin' rocket scientist to use linux at all. once you're a rocket scientist, there are no secrets left. i guess they could write a good linux secret book: "Chapter One: There is only one secret in Linux - that if you bought this book, Linux is not for you!!"