I don't see anywhere in the Haskell version where the tree is serialized as it's being built, so the entire result set will be read in eventually there, too.
Visual Studio is not a compiler. It's a development environment. The compiler it uses ("cl.exe") is included in the.NET Framework SDK, which is a free download. The linker is in there, too.
You clearly do not have children. It's easy to find everything when you're the only one using it, and you make sure to put it back where it belongs after every use. Add a few more people into the mix, not so easy.
I also dont understand the need for a frontend to aptitude, apt + front end is just as powerful
Aptitude is a front end to apt, so technically your statement is correct. Basically the hierarchy goes: dpkg -> apt -> aptitude/apt-get/synaptic/dselect/etc.
Aptitude is already far more powerful than apt-get and dselect, and probably more powerful than synaptic (although I haven't used synaptic, so I couldn't say for certain). This project is intended to add a graphical interface, to compliment the curses and command line interfaces.
This is completely off-topic for the current thread, but I've always wondered why people do this. Why did you substitute an asterisk for the "i" in "bitch"? There's no swearing filter at Slashdot. It's clear that you wanted to use a swear word, as opposed to using a less "offensive" word (perhaps "pain" in this case, for example). And since none of "batch", "botch", or "butch" will fit semantically, no one is going to mistake which word you meant, so you aren't saving anyone any offense they would have had at just using the correct spelling.
That's a very broad statement that doesn't correspond to what I wrote in the slightest.
It does correspond to what you wrote, but your short-sightedness is preventing you from seeing it.
They have certain terms and conditions by which one is allowed to play the game. [snip] I believe they have every right to control how their servers are interfaced to.
I have no problem with that. If they want to ban every single user, go right ahead. I don't even play WoW, so I couldn't care less about that.
The problem isn't that they want to exert control over their servers or who interacts with them. No one is going to disagree with that. The problem is that they want to go far, far beyond that. The outcomes of court cases set legal precedents. If they win this case, it will set a legal precedent that corporations can effectively prohibit the distribution of software that interacts with their own, even if it isn't illegal. There's no legal justification for Blizzard to be able to prevent this guy from writing and selling this software. The users of Glider are the ones breaking Blizzard's terms of service. But they want to go after the developer, who hasn't broken the law. Setting such a precedent would be very bad.
This is about much more than your silly game. Please try to understand the real scope here. Please?
Bottled water is only sold at a premium because marketers are good at fooling people. It is often just pulled from rivers or streams, and is actually processed less than city tap water. (You want the processing in this case because it removes harmful stuff and adds some good things.) Think of that the next time you're paying $1 for 12 oz of water that is less healthy for you than the $0.07/gallon from your tap.
As others have tried to explain, that would just be a license violation, not copyright infringement. You bought a license for one, but you're running two. It's not copyright infringement because in order to be infringing, the copy must be distributed. That's the entire point of copyright: to limit the distribution of copies. The copy isn't distributed, it's on the same user's computer as the first copy.
The scary part is that you don't seem to understand that the outcomes of legal cases set legal precedents. If this case goes through, and Blizzard wins, it's not just WoW and the developer of Glider that will be affected. Anyone who writes software has the potential of being affected. Is it worth losing freedoms because you want to stop cheaters in your online game?
Would you still thing it good if they set a legal precedent where a corporation can shutdown the distribution of any software they don't like, even if it isn't illegal? Sounds like a real good idea to me.
Sure, and they are already doing that when they catch them. The problem with this case is that that strategy isn't working well enough, so Blizzard wants to set a legal precedent against this guy, who hasn't done anything illegal. This could turn out very bad if they win.
That's actually a good analogy, because it points out exactly what is wrong with this case.
Selling steroids is legal. Selling software is legal. What Blizzard is doing is equivalent to the MLB suing the steroid seller, who is not doing anything wrong, because the players are using steroids, which is against their rules.
You may be upset that steroid using players ruin the game, but it isn't illegal. It's just against the rules of baseball. So those players should be punished, not the steroid seller. The most Blizzard should be able to do is go after the players.
Writing software that reads specific memory locations and sends input messages to the OS in response is not illegal. Selling such software isn't illegal. Let's please not let it become so.
NDISWrapper deals with Window's binary blob drivers. That, under anyone's definition, means nothing GPLed can touch them.
It's not so clear-cut as that. Can a GPL program, say Open Office, "touch" Word documents?
A Word document is file of binary data (ie, not strictly text). Open Office loads this binary file to perform some work: reading and writing a document.
A Windows network driver is a file of binary data. NDISWrapper loads this binary file to perform some work: reading and writing network data.
Why is the GPL available to one but not the other? NDISWrapper just loads the driver into memory and shuttles data back and forth between it and the kernel. I don't see any reason preventing it being GPL licensed.
Re:IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR bsdphx!!!!!
on
Chroot in OpenSSH
·
· Score: 1
Ironically, the word 'good' should really have been 'well' in the previous sentence
Did it change the meaning to something other than what was intended? Because that's what ironic means.
Making the same mistake yourself while correcting someone else is not ironic. It's just humorously coincidental. Please watch this episode of Futurama for further education.
Re:The best tools stay out of the way...
on
Goodbye Cruel Word
·
· Score: 1
My wife recently finished her master's thesis, written in Word 2003. She even knew the perils of Word from problems that the other graduate students went through, but felt that learning something new would take valuable time that she needed to spend writing. I believe her thesis ended up being about 200 pages including the figures.
Initial writing went fine. At the end, she spent over two weeks working on nothing but formatting, in particular wrestling with sectional formatting changes that seemed to revert while making other formatting changes. Eventually she ended up having to visually skim the entire document any time she made what should have been a localized formatting change, to make sure that no other formatting was unintentionally changed (and fixing it when it was).
Hopefully for you, Word 2007 doesn't have the "magic limit" that past versions have had. It seems that somewhere over 100 pages, Word kind of breaks down internally and you start seeing problems that don't appear with shorter documents. And if you stick with Word, at least take these two pieces of advice: 1) make frequent backup copies, make sure Word will open them, and don't delete them; and 2) make sure you finish the writing a few weeks before the due date, so you'll have time to fix the formatting.
This post has been created as "HTML Formatted" for your angle-bracket viewing pleasure (and note the post subject). If you learn about HTML entities, you'll have no trouble displaying your >s and <s.
To add a bit to your other responder, when the browser renders a page, it take more memory than just the base file size to do it. Even a page without many images could take a lot more memory depending on the complexity of the CSS and/or Javascript. It's not just displaying 44k of raw text. The HTML and CSS together give a description of the pictorial representation of the page, which the browser then has to draw. That drawing, and its associated data structures, can take a lot of memory relative to the size of the HTML file. It's even worse with images. An image in memory basically becomes a bitmap when rendered, because the OS has to tell the monitor which colors to put in which pixels. So your "optimize my images for the web" only helps with the download size of the image, not the in-memory space it needs when displayed.
I'm a web developer.
That's clear. It's also clear that you don't understand the programming issues involved, yet you complain about them like you do.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see anywhere in the Haskell version where the tree is serialized as it's being built, so the entire result set will be read in eventually there, too.
Visual Studio is not a compiler. It's a development environment. The compiler it uses ("cl.exe") is included in the .NET Framework SDK, which is a free download. The linker is in there, too.
See this link for more info.
You clearly do not have children. It's easy to find everything when you're the only one using it, and you make sure to put it back where it belongs after every use. Add a few more people into the mix, not so easy.
For someone who doesn't learn quickly.
I also dont understand the need for a frontend to aptitude, apt + front end is just as powerful
Aptitude is a front end to apt, so technically your statement is correct. Basically the hierarchy goes: dpkg -> apt -> aptitude/apt-get/synaptic/dselect/etc.
Aptitude is already far more powerful than apt-get and dselect, and probably more powerful than synaptic (although I haven't used synaptic, so I couldn't say for certain). This project is intended to add a graphical interface, to compliment the curses and command line interfaces.
It actually used to be that the comma before and was required. However, language evolves, and now both forms are accepted.
Unfortunately, you have to eat bugs.
The word you're looking for is figuratively.
This is completely off-topic for the current thread, but I've always wondered why people do this. Why did you substitute an asterisk for the "i" in "bitch"? There's no swearing filter at Slashdot. It's clear that you wanted to use a swear word, as opposed to using a less "offensive" word (perhaps "pain" in this case, for example). And since none of "batch", "botch", or "butch" will fit semantically, no one is going to mistake which word you meant, so you aren't saving anyone any offense they would have had at just using the correct spelling.
Why?
That's a very broad statement that doesn't correspond to what I wrote in the slightest.
It does correspond to what you wrote, but your short-sightedness is preventing you from seeing it.
They have certain terms and conditions by which one is allowed to play the game. [snip] I believe they have every right to control how their servers are interfaced to.
I have no problem with that. If they want to ban every single user, go right ahead. I don't even play WoW, so I couldn't care less about that.
The problem isn't that they want to exert control over their servers or who interacts with them. No one is going to disagree with that. The problem is that they want to go far, far beyond that. The outcomes of court cases set legal precedents. If they win this case, it will set a legal precedent that corporations can effectively prohibit the distribution of software that interacts with their own, even if it isn't illegal. There's no legal justification for Blizzard to be able to prevent this guy from writing and selling this software. The users of Glider are the ones breaking Blizzard's terms of service. But they want to go after the developer, who hasn't broken the law. Setting such a precedent would be very bad.
This is about much more than your silly game. Please try to understand the real scope here. Please?
Bottled water is only sold at a premium because marketers are good at fooling people. It is often just pulled from rivers or streams, and is actually processed less than city tap water. (You want the processing in this case because it removes harmful stuff and adds some good things.) Think of that the next time you're paying $1 for 12 oz of water that is less healthy for you than the $0.07/gallon from your tap.
As others have tried to explain, that would just be a license violation, not copyright infringement. You bought a license for one, but you're running two. It's not copyright infringement because in order to be infringing, the copy must be distributed. That's the entire point of copyright: to limit the distribution of copies. The copy isn't distributed, it's on the same user's computer as the first copy.
The scary part is that you don't seem to understand that the outcomes of legal cases set legal precedents. If this case goes through, and Blizzard wins, it's not just WoW and the developer of Glider that will be affected. Anyone who writes software has the potential of being affected. Is it worth losing freedoms because you want to stop cheaters in your online game?
Would you still thing it good if they set a legal precedent where a corporation can shutdown the distribution of any software they don't like, even if it isn't illegal? Sounds like a real good idea to me.
FRY the cheaters.
Sure, and they are already doing that when they catch them. The problem with this case is that that strategy isn't working well enough, so Blizzard wants to set a legal precedent against this guy, who hasn't done anything illegal. This could turn out very bad if they win.
Granted, it would be easier to go after the individual players - but better to attack the problem at its source.
If by "better" you mean, "Legally shaky and worse for everyone in the country if they win."
That's actually a good analogy, because it points out exactly what is wrong with this case.
Selling steroids is legal. Selling software is legal. What Blizzard is doing is equivalent to the MLB suing the steroid seller, who is not doing anything wrong, because the players are using steroids, which is against their rules.
You may be upset that steroid using players ruin the game, but it isn't illegal. It's just against the rules of baseball. So those players should be punished, not the steroid seller. The most Blizzard should be able to do is go after the players.
Writing software that reads specific memory locations and sends input messages to the OS in response is not illegal. Selling such software isn't illegal. Let's please not let it become so.
NDISWrapper deals with Window's binary blob drivers.
That, under anyone's definition, means nothing GPLed can touch them.
It's not so clear-cut as that. Can a GPL program, say Open Office, "touch" Word documents?
A Word document is file of binary data (ie, not strictly text). Open Office loads this binary file to perform some work: reading and writing a document.
A Windows network driver is a file of binary data. NDISWrapper loads this binary file to perform some work: reading and writing network data.
Why is the GPL available to one but not the other? NDISWrapper just loads the driver into memory and shuttles data back and forth between it and the kernel. I don't see any reason preventing it being GPL licensed.
Ironically, the word 'good' should really have been 'well' in the previous sentence
Did it change the meaning to something other than what was intended? Because that's what ironic means.
Making the same mistake yourself while correcting someone else is not ironic. It's just humorously coincidental. Please watch this episode of Futurama for further education.
My wife recently finished her master's thesis, written in Word 2003. She even knew the perils of Word from problems that the other graduate students went through, but felt that learning something new would take valuable time that she needed to spend writing. I believe her thesis ended up being about 200 pages including the figures.
Initial writing went fine. At the end, she spent over two weeks working on nothing but formatting, in particular wrestling with sectional formatting changes that seemed to revert while making other formatting changes. Eventually she ended up having to visually skim the entire document any time she made what should have been a localized formatting change, to make sure that no other formatting was unintentionally changed (and fixing it when it was).
Hopefully for you, Word 2007 doesn't have the "magic limit" that past versions have had. It seems that somewhere over 100 pages, Word kind of breaks down internally and you start seeing problems that don't appear with shorter documents. And if you stick with Word, at least take these two pieces of advice: 1) make frequent backup copies, make sure Word will open them, and don't delete them; and 2) make sure you finish the writing a few weeks before the due date, so you'll have time to fix the formatting.
in fact, all the games on that list use GPL engine that were built on iD's released Quake1/2/3 engines.
Sauerbraten has a custom engine.
This post has been created as "HTML Formatted" for your angle-bracket viewing pleasure (and note the post subject). If you learn about HTML entities, you'll have no trouble displaying your >s and <s.
Take a look at Tcl::Tk or Tkx. They provide a wrapper around an existing Tk, so you don't need to wait for the Perl/Tk to be updated.
no text
To add a bit to your other responder, when the browser renders a page, it take more memory than just the base file size to do it. Even a page without many images could take a lot more memory depending on the complexity of the CSS and/or Javascript. It's not just displaying 44k of raw text. The HTML and CSS together give a description of the pictorial representation of the page, which the browser then has to draw. That drawing, and its associated data structures, can take a lot of memory relative to the size of the HTML file. It's even worse with images. An image in memory basically becomes a bitmap when rendered, because the OS has to tell the monitor which colors to put in which pixels. So your "optimize my images for the web" only helps with the download size of the image, not the in-memory space it needs when displayed.
I'm a web developer.
That's clear. It's also clear that you don't understand the programming issues involved, yet you complain about them like you do.