People have compared "cheaply" built x86 boxes to macs...
I could say the exact reverse, since you don't provide any evidence to back up this claim. However, I would not be surprised if similar hardware was similar in price; that is common sense. The difference is that if I build my own machine, I can tailor it to the specific task I intend for it. If I just need a router/firewall, I can find a low-speed processor, inexpensive hard drive, inexpensive NIC, and that's all I need. I could probably save some money on a motherboard and get one without integrated video and sound, just run it headless. But if I want to go with Apple, I can't buy exactly what I need; I can only buy what they're selling. I can customize somewhat, but not anywhere near the customization I can get by not going with Apple.
Frankly, for what I use a computer for at home, the machine I built four years ago is perfectly fine. And I could build the same exact machine today for much cheaper. But I can't do that with Apple. They don't want you buying four year old machines because they don't make as much money.
Your time-sink argument is a strawman. Schools and businesses are going to hire someone to run their networks. If they choose Linux, they will hire someone who is knowledgable and will already know how to set it up easily. If they hire someone who is not knowledgable about the infrastructure they chose, it will not matter what that choice was; they will probably be sorry.
Simply put, flawed logic in the pursuit of "freedom."
Some people place a higher value on being able to choose, even if the path is more difficult, than on being stylish but having all of your decisions handed to you.
I don't even need rendered windows. I just sense where things are. You should see some of the fantastic effects I know the windows are doing. It would blow your mind.
No, you would look stupid for wasting money to pay extra for proprietary hardware when you're just going to use the same perfectly good OS that you could have run dirt cheap.
The downside is that these lawyers will increase their fees to make up for the lost revenue. That may not affect you directly, but the people in genuine need of asbestos lawyers probably won't like it.
Actually, the 5th step is only true if either 1) the company is a monopoly and there are no other suppliers for the customers to turn to, or 2) the company's higher prices are still lower than their competitors. In the first case, the company could raise their prices anyway. In the second case, the customers are still getting the best deal.
I guess it depends on what you mean when you say "around the corner." If you follow the trends from this guy's journal, it looks to be either May-June 2006 (with linear interpolation) or January-February 2006 (with order-2 polynomial interpolation - there seems to be a slight trend, but not really enough data points to say for sure yet). If "the corner" is the new year, I guess it would be just around the corner.
It doesn't have all these virus programs available for it either. Where are the OSS viruses we've been promised for so long?? At this rate, Linux will never be on the same level as Windows.
Well since this is Slashdot, I think we can rule out "daylight" in the definition of "ordinary light". "Ordinary light" is more like "darkened basement".
it has rules...but no officers to enforce those rules.
This argument gets paraded out so often, people have just accepted it and don't realize how ridiculous it is. There are officers to enforce the rules, and they are called Standards. Programming style is a social problem, not a technical one. If it's getting out of hand, your company (or department, or team) needs to develop a set of standards and make people use them. Instead, you would rather make the language itself so limited and inflexible that bad style is curtailed.
For me perl will remain a language for very quick and dirty tasks.
And you will never understand how a programming language can mold to suit you, rather than molding yourself to suit the language. Frankly, I would rather the language make all things possible, so that I can choose what to do, not have the language choose for me.
It's also pretty nonsensical because it's a waste of bandwidth, which is exactly what deep linkers want to avoid.
It's probably one reason, but it isn't the only reason, and may not even be the major reason. I would guess that the major reason is that people don't know how or are unable to copy the picture locally. Just because you have a blog somewhere doesn't mean you can put arbitrary content on its server.
Another possibility, although far less likely, is that the picture changes periodically, but keeps the same URL. Then copying it locally wouldn't show the new one when it gets updated, but using the redirection would.
You (and almost everyone else who has commented) are assuming that the article is describing a process for etching. Apparently the article was unreachable for a long while after the story was posted, and the summary is not very precise, so you're not to blame. However, this is not a process for etching, but for actually cutting all the way through the metal, in possibly detailed designs.
Re:What could firefox hacks possibly cover?
on
Firefox In Print
·
· Score: 1
Enlarge/shrink is better because it should work 100% of the time, whereas reloading only works some of the time. (Believe me, before I found the enlarge/shrink trick I could sit and reload Slashdot 10 times before it would display correctly.) The problem is that there is a bug in the reflow code so that it doesn't reflow correctly sometimes. When you enlarge/shrink it just uses the page already in the cache or in memory. So it has the entire page and can read it all and display it correctly. When you hit reload, however, it has to refetch the page, so it's prone to the same display/reflow problem as the first page load. Besides which, if you're fetching a page from a slow server, the enlarge/shrink trick will be faster because you don't actually have to refetch the page.
My point was about the phrase "my content", not the issue with ads. I agree that you can choose to read or not those feeds with ads. I even agree that you can choose to filter out the ads you do receive. What I do not agree with is the idea that the content is yours. It is not yours. You are a consumer of the content, but you are not its producer. Your phrasing implies that you are annoyed that the content's true producers would even imagine changing what they rightfully own, in a way that you dislike.
Is that true? Having ads intermingled with your content is too invasive for you? Please explain how you own the content that you neither create, nor wish to support through viewed advertising. Perhaps you believe you inherently own everything that is offered at no cost to you? That it is your right to receive it without ads?
It depends on your definition of better. Typing speed is probably unreliable, as people will have different typing proficiency regardless of what layout they use, and I suspect that once you become really good a given layout, that will skew the results of any other layout you learn. In other words, I believe it would be very difficult to conclusively prove faster typing using a particular layout, given all of the uncontrollable variables involved.
However, one concrete measure is finger movement distance for the same words. I have not personally done any research on this, but many other comments attached to this story indicate that, on average, Dvorak involves moving your fingers less. (And some of them have links that may point to real research. Again, I have not followed any of them.) That could translate into a real benefit for your fingers over your lifetime. Unfortunately, to do a scientific study on it, it would take near a lifetime to be able to measure the full effects on the subject group (from first learning typing at a young age, through late adulthood), and you would be dead.
If you are the patient type, you could just trying learning and using the Dvorak layout for several months, and see if you personally like it better. After all, regardless of any studies, you would be the one doing your typing. Otherwise, just go on your merry way and forget the whole thing. Why worry about something that has no impact on your life?
(As a disclaimer, I currently use the Qwerty layout, but this story's comments have piqued my interest enough that I may try Dvorak, to see if I like it better.)
In case you didn't notice, one of the big arguments for the Dvorak layout is an increase in typing speed. If your "need" isn't faster typing, then that's fine. But many people who type a lot would like to type faster, so it is relevant.
I actually was not trying to be patronizing, though I understand that it can be read that way. I was trying to point out a simple way to remember the pronunciation of "loose" to help you with your communications. Since LoseNotLooseGuy has seemingly gone inactive, I'm trying to help out where I can. I will show more care in the future. Thanks.
Since you're apparently too young to know the difference, or have never used a *nix system, let me explain ^H and ^W to you. In the old days, improperly configured terminals happened often. If your terminal was not configured properly, the Backspace key might not be interpreted correctly, and the terminal would display ^H instead of removing the previous character. The control code ^W is/was used to remove all characters back to the last whitespace, ie the previous word.
This will have a benefit other than potentially stopping comment spam. It will also improve search engine rankings by taking out a big chunk of "untruthful" linking that inflates a site's rank.
Slashdot Mirror
People have compared "cheaply" built x86 boxes to macs...
I could say the exact reverse, since you don't provide any evidence to back up this claim. However, I would not be surprised if similar hardware was similar in price; that is common sense. The difference is that if I build my own machine, I can tailor it to the specific task I intend for it. If I just need a router/firewall, I can find a low-speed processor, inexpensive hard drive, inexpensive NIC, and that's all I need. I could probably save some money on a motherboard and get one without integrated video and sound, just run it headless. But if I want to go with Apple, I can't buy exactly what I need; I can only buy what they're selling. I can customize somewhat, but not anywhere near the customization I can get by not going with Apple.
Frankly, for what I use a computer for at home, the machine I built four years ago is perfectly fine. And I could build the same exact machine today for much cheaper. But I can't do that with Apple. They don't want you buying four year old machines because they don't make as much money.
Your time-sink argument is a strawman. Schools and businesses are going to hire someone to run their networks. If they choose Linux, they will hire someone who is knowledgable and will already know how to set it up easily. If they hire someone who is not knowledgable about the infrastructure they chose, it will not matter what that choice was; they will probably be sorry.
Simply put, flawed logic in the pursuit of "freedom."
Some people place a higher value on being able to choose, even if the path is more difficult, than on being stylish but having all of your decisions handed to you.
I don't even need rendered windows. I just sense where things are. You should see some of the fantastic effects I know the windows are doing. It would blow your mind.
No, you would look stupid for wasting money to pay extra for proprietary hardware when you're just going to use the same perfectly good OS that you could have run dirt cheap.
Is there a downside?
The downside is that these lawyers will increase their fees to make up for the lost revenue. That may not affect you directly, but the people in genuine need of asbestos lawyers probably won't like it.
Actually, the 5th step is only true if either 1) the company is a monopoly and there are no other suppliers for the customers to turn to, or 2) the company's higher prices are still lower than their competitors. In the first case, the company could raise their prices anyway. In the second case, the customers are still getting the best deal.
Your sig:
UID 1000000 is just around the corner.
I guess it depends on what you mean when you say "around the corner." If you follow the trends from this guy's journal, it looks to be either May-June 2006 (with linear interpolation) or January-February 2006 (with order-2 polynomial interpolation - there seems to be a slight trend, but not really enough data points to say for sure yet). If "the corner" is the new year, I guess it would be just around the corner.
It doesn't have all these virus programs available for it either. Where are the OSS viruses we've been promised for so long?? At this rate, Linux will never be on the same level as Windows.
Well since this is Slashdot, I think we can rule out "daylight" in the definition of "ordinary light". "Ordinary light" is more like "darkened basement".
it has rules...but no officers to enforce those rules.
This argument gets paraded out so often, people have just accepted it and don't realize how ridiculous it is. There are officers to enforce the rules, and they are called Standards. Programming style is a social problem, not a technical one. If it's getting out of hand, your company (or department, or team) needs to develop a set of standards and make people use them. Instead, you would rather make the language itself so limited and inflexible that bad style is curtailed.
For me perl will remain a language for very quick and dirty tasks.
And you will never understand how a programming language can mold to suit you, rather than molding yourself to suit the language. Frankly, I would rather the language make all things possible, so that I can choose what to do, not have the language choose for me.
It's also pretty nonsensical because it's a waste of bandwidth, which is exactly what deep linkers want to avoid.
It's probably one reason, but it isn't the only reason, and may not even be the major reason. I would guess that the major reason is that people don't know how or are unable to copy the picture locally. Just because you have a blog somewhere doesn't mean you can put arbitrary content on its server.
Another possibility, although far less likely, is that the picture changes periodically, but keeps the same URL. Then copying it locally wouldn't show the new one when it gets updated, but using the redirection would.
You (and almost everyone else who has commented) are assuming that the article is describing a process for etching. Apparently the article was unreachable for a long while after the story was posted, and the summary is not very precise, so you're not to blame. However, this is not a process for etching, but for actually cutting all the way through the metal, in possibly detailed designs.
Enlarge/shrink is better because it should work 100% of the time, whereas reloading only works some of the time. (Believe me, before I found the enlarge/shrink trick I could sit and reload Slashdot 10 times before it would display correctly.) The problem is that there is a bug in the reflow code so that it doesn't reflow correctly sometimes. When you enlarge/shrink it just uses the page already in the cache or in memory. So it has the entire page and can read it all and display it correctly. When you hit reload, however, it has to refetch the page, so it's prone to the same display/reflow problem as the first page load. Besides which, if you're fetching a page from a slow server, the enlarge/shrink trick will be faster because you don't actually have to refetch the page.
My point was about the phrase "my content", not the issue with ads. I agree that you can choose to read or not those feeds with ads. I even agree that you can choose to filter out the ads you do receive. What I do not agree with is the idea that the content is yours. It is not yours. You are a consumer of the content, but you are not its producer. Your phrasing implies that you are annoyed that the content's true producers would even imagine changing what they rightfully own, in a way that you dislike.
What's the point?
I think the point is the hundred thousand dollars he made in the process.
Is that true? Having ads intermingled with your content is too invasive for you? Please explain how you own the content that you neither create, nor wish to support through viewed advertising. Perhaps you believe you inherently own everything that is offered at no cost to you? That it is your right to receive it without ads?
Please explain how text ads do not use any bandwidth. Perhaps the electrons travel through hyperspace instead of cyberspace?
Here he is.
It depends on your definition of better. Typing speed is probably unreliable, as people will have different typing proficiency regardless of what layout they use, and I suspect that once you become really good a given layout, that will skew the results of any other layout you learn. In other words, I believe it would be very difficult to conclusively prove faster typing using a particular layout, given all of the uncontrollable variables involved.
However, one concrete measure is finger movement distance for the same words. I have not personally done any research on this, but many other comments attached to this story indicate that, on average, Dvorak involves moving your fingers less. (And some of them have links that may point to real research. Again, I have not followed any of them.) That could translate into a real benefit for your fingers over your lifetime. Unfortunately, to do a scientific study on it, it would take near a lifetime to be able to measure the full effects on the subject group (from first learning typing at a young age, through late adulthood), and you would be dead.
If you are the patient type, you could just trying learning and using the Dvorak layout for several months, and see if you personally like it better. After all, regardless of any studies, you would be the one doing your typing. Otherwise, just go on your merry way and forget the whole thing. Why worry about something that has no impact on your life?
(As a disclaimer, I currently use the Qwerty layout, but this story's comments have piqued my interest enough that I may try Dvorak, to see if I like it better.)
In case you didn't notice, one of the big arguments for the Dvorak layout is an increase in typing speed. If your "need" isn't faster typing, then that's fine. But many people who type a lot would like to type faster, so it is relevant.
Symlink te to ls. Then for "ls" it's middle-middle-pinkie; very easy. "ls -l" is still three pinkies in a row at the end, tho.
I actually was not trying to be patronizing, though I understand that it can be read that way. I was trying to point out a simple way to remember the pronunciation of "loose" to help you with your communications. Since LoseNotLooseGuy has seemingly gone inactive, I'm trying to help out where I can. I will show more care in the future. Thanks.
pRuby?
Please remember this in the future: "loose" rhymes with "moose". The word you are looking for is "lose".
So what you've just punned is effectively:
This will have a benefit other than potentially stopping comment spam. It will also improve search engine rankings by taking out a big chunk of "untruthful" linking that inflates a site's rank.