Observation is granular because detectors trigger at a point so of course it gives results in terms of quanta... But it IS all waves. I expect you both are right.
It takes a very long time to develop faster-than-light (or better) technology but in every case before a civilization can do so, they are wiped out by a gamma-ray burst.
Even colonizing the outer planets won't be enough, they (we) would have to spread across the galaxy and outside the home galaxy to survive gamma-ray bursts.
Thanks. That was the first comment I read in this discussion that was actually useful and not just a snide comment. I'm sorry, I know posting fashion stories on Slashdot is already a longshot but I still wish the geeks would use their considerable intelligences towards insightful comments instead of what I've been reading for the past few years.
Re:The last we'll hear? Not according to the link.
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 1
But Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM, in which the computer giant is accused of using Unix code to make the Linux operating system a viable competitor, causing a decline in SCO's revenues.
"The copyright claims are gone, but we have other claims based on contracts," Cahn said. '
The moment the defense points out that SCO knowingly added the code into Linux and distributed it under the GPL the trial should be over.
To me, adding lines of code is adding lines of code, no matter what the reason. Adding lines is adding complexities and bugs. It's like he's saying that instead of designing and coding correctly initially, you just need to add more code to make the software 'correct'.
That reminds me of a joke; if you remove all the lines of code, there are no bugs. OK not a very good joke.
Getting software right is very, very difficult.... Code review alone is not sufficient. Testing is not sufficient. Tools are not sufficient. Features are not sufficient.
One of these things is not like the other...
Features are to software correctness as apples are to oranges.
Really, do not subscribe me to your newsletter, mr 'program manager'
if this thing does make (one) and the planet gets converted into a glob of it, hopefully it'll happen at the speed of light so we won't feel anything.
There are those who believe that if these accelerators ever do create the exotic matter we are looking for the universe will instantly be replaced by something strange and inexplicable.
There are those who believe this has already happened.
Yes. I picked the longest possible example (newbie-ineptness and building everything from source) for Linux and it still comes out on top!
I mean look at the Mac, they finally dumped their home-made O.S. and slapped Unix under there and we know they're actually technologically-advanced space-aliens, right?;-)
Typically when I install a software, the whole selection-download-build-install operation takes less time than it would with Windows, that's for sure. The only exceptions I can think of are for monster-sized jobs like Open-Office...
Blake, NT WAS designed with Posix-compliance, yes, but the over-arching goal was backward compatibility with Windows 3.1, remember?
And yes, I agree, Linux may not be for everyone. As a matter of fact, I sort of like it NOT being for everyone, that way when people ask "you're in computers, right? I'm having a problem with mine..." I simply say "Windows?" "Yes" - "Sorry, I run Linux" and I can avoid all that.
But then again, I'm this crazy and wild person who actually cares about usability, especially in a GUI... [...] I think the OS should meld to the user's expectations, not the other way around.
Ah, but there's the rub: You (likely) started out with Windows, and now it feels natural to you.
After unlearning everything I had learned with Windows and learning how to use Linux, I feel that way, but about Linux!
I mean program-installation (package management) seems far more logical in Linux... No need to go hunting around for what I want, then hunting for the download, then trying to find the downloaded package, etc...
Linux is neater: Look in the catalog, then select what you want and it installs.
You can also install things manually if you want or even in your home folder. It's much more logical.
And coming from long experience programming Windows at every level (device-driver through services to gui apps) I can attest that Linux IS more secure by design because its parent specification (POSIX) was just much better thought-out, whereas in Windows it's always been an afterthought.
When you talk about security, it's a bit of a matter of the underlying filesystem, isn't it? If you were to use FAT32 instead of NTFS then the security would be reduced quite a bit.
I gave up at Windows XP. It was just not good enough for me.
I'm sure that Windows 7 has improved though. I used Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, WFW 3.11, Win95, Win98, NOT WinME, Win2K and WinXP and each one of them got succesively better up until WinXP, which I felt was less stable than Win2K.
It's just that I don't care anymore. Once you really give Linux a shot, you see that it is more thought-out, has better quality, security, etc...
As a computing platform, it is a shame it is not embraced by more vendors because then we would have more progress, truer competition instead of what we have now, which is MS's predatory lock-in tactics for their clients and exclusionary tactics for their competitors.
Was the last Linux distro you installed Yggdrasil? If not, this example is pure crap, as I can't remember the last time the defaults (clicking NEXT) didn't work, with ANY Linux distro I've come across.
No, it was Gentoo, six years ago. It didn't have a graphical installer back then and I chose to install from source. Can't remember if there was also a stage-3 back then...
I didn't know or understand very much about Linux back then and after screwing up 3 times and starting over (which in hindsight was unnecessary) and getting a not-very powerful machine to compile everything, three days HAD passed.
Remember, my example was based on a true story (mine)
But the silver lining (and the point I was trying to make) is that since then I've NEVER had to reinstall from scratch, unlike Windows forces you to do far too often.
Yet, my computer is always right up to date and running the very latest kernel and userspace.
Linux is way more seamless that way, especially since it is not based around an artificial must-upgrade-every-time-MS-decides scheme.
I suppose if I had to sum it up my bottom line would be that Linux required more effort up front, but is far more rewarding subsequently.
My video would be a split-screen labelled Linux on the left side and Windows on the right side.
The video begins with left-side user installing Linux and right-side user installing Windows.
The time span shows Left installing Linux, messing up, starting over two or three times and text that says "time elapsed: 3 days" at the end of which the user looks a bit tired but finally satisfied.
During this, the user on the right side pops in the Windows XP disk and installs Windows mostly by clicking OK. A text appears that says "time elapsed: 2 hours"
Then both the left and right users sit down and start using their computers.
Many quick-succession shots follow, indicating passage of time.
On the left side, the Linux user sits and uses his computer as the caption indicates the passage of time: 3 months, 6 months, a year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, 6 years... This goes on with no end in sight. The user is oblivious to everything as he is absorbed in actually using his computer now.
During this time, the user on the right repeatedly complains that his computer is getting slower and slower. He reluctantly stops every three months and backs up his files, angrily wipes everything from the computer, reformats and reinstalls everything. This happens over and over, with the user becoming more and more frustrated each time as the user on the left continues using his computer with no interruptions.
The video ends with the user on the right giving up and asking the user on the left for his Linux install disk.
The caption reads "This is based on a true story" and then "Linux: What do YOU want to do today?"
The ISP is not a restaurant with a menu, because on the Internet, you do not obtain content (food) from your ISP.
Rather, the Internet is a cafeteria and the ISP is one of many plate-dispensers in the cafeteria. You put whatever you like in your plate and the plate dispenser has no business deciding if it likes what you're eating, it's just serving plates for you to carry around your food in.
Armadillo probably doesn't have enough expertise to code most of the hard stuff.
I disagree, they have one of the computer industry's best programmers, who has coded graphical things, yes, and undoubtedly physics simulation things. To a mind like that, a breakthrough in any of the needed algorithms is practically assured.
And anyway, they don't have to develop ALL of it, I'm just talking about how they could refine ONE thing and that could then be used to further others' work... Like how science normally works.
The know-how of the original moon landings is all but lost now.
This appears to be an attempt to prevent that happening by using open-source software.
One of the arguments we've heard many times in favour of open-source software is that you can always adapt it, move your data into newer environments and make it live on.
It may take them a long time, they may not even be the ones who end up finishing the project, sure, but using open tools and open formats IS the way to go.
There is no "Assembly" workbench with its numerous constraints. I don't see auxiliary geometry, such as work planes, axes and points. I don't see projected contours and relations between parts. That's a super-major hole. The list of features that can be created is quite basic. Professional CADs (SolidWorks, Inventor, SolidEdge, ProE) have lots more, and you need them. There is no pipe and harness workbench, sheet metal workbench, molds, gears, kinematic, stress, thermal, vibration - you name them they don't have them. You'd think stress and vibration are optional on a rocket?
You know what? Your comment makes me wonder what Armadillo Aerospace could come up with (in software) for their own designs and then what technology they would eventually bring back to games as a result...
Inquisitive minds are a danger to authority. Best to shut it down as early as possible. No need to seek out anything. It will be provided to you on a need to know basis. Curiosity should be confronted with great suspicion. If somebody asks a question, the only proper answer is, "Why do you want to know?".
Ironic that this company once ran an ad based on Orwell's 1984 where Apple decries totalitarian control.
I fixed the problem on my Mac-mini: I installed Linux on it.
Maybe all the bots are part of the same botnet and were programmed to attack at the first spike. The fact they are located in different countries doesn't mean anything, it's simply hiding whoever is really behind the attack.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted maybe half a million of those are picture of Muhammad Ali, but there are literally millions of images of Muhammad on the Internet...
Makes you wonder how you could possibly remove them all... Of course you cannot.
And the more noise made about it, the more images there will be.
I scanned the release notes, couldn't find any mention of 3D support...
What is the added 3D support, exactly?
Observation is granular because detectors trigger at a point so of course it gives results in terms of quanta... But it IS all waves.
I expect you both are right.
It takes a very long time to develop faster-than-light (or better) technology but in every case before a civilization can do so, they are wiped out by a gamma-ray burst.
Even colonizing the outer planets won't be enough, they (we) would have to spread across the galaxy and outside the home galaxy to survive gamma-ray bursts.
Thanks. That was the first comment I read in this discussion that was actually useful and not just a snide comment.
I'm sorry, I know posting fashion stories on Slashdot is already a longshot but I still wish the geeks would use their considerable intelligences towards insightful comments instead of what I've been reading for the past few years.
The moment the defense points out that SCO knowingly added the code into Linux and distributed it under the GPL the trial should be over.
Right?
I use Linux ALL the time as my main OS and would never consider using Windows again, nor the Mac, having been burned far too often by both of them.
That being said, I use the free MS PowerPoint viewer via Wine to be able to properly view PowerPoint attachments.
OpenOffice has never been able to play those properly, but the free viewer plus Wine combo work absolutely perfectly.
In essence, I suppose what I'm saying is that for closed formats like PP, MS still does it best.
I get what your saying.
To me, adding lines of code is adding lines of code, no matter what the reason. Adding lines is adding complexities and bugs. It's like he's saying that instead of designing and coding correctly initially, you just need to add more code to make the software 'correct'.
That reminds me of a joke; if you remove all the lines of code, there are no bugs.
OK not a very good joke.
One of these things is not like the other...
Features are to software correctness as apples are to oranges.
Really, do not subscribe me to your newsletter, mr 'program manager'
There are those who believe that if these accelerators ever do create the exotic matter we are looking for the universe will instantly be replaced by something strange and inexplicable.
There are those who believe this has already happened.
Yes.
I picked the longest possible example (newbie-ineptness and building everything from source) for Linux and it still comes out on top!
I mean look at the Mac, they finally dumped their home-made O.S. and slapped Unix under there and we know they're actually technologically-advanced space-aliens, right? ;-)
Typically when I install a software, the whole selection-download-build-install operation takes less time than it would with Windows, that's for sure. The only exceptions I can think of are for monster-sized jobs like Open-Office...
Blake, NT WAS designed with Posix-compliance, yes, but the over-arching goal was backward compatibility with Windows 3.1, remember?
And yes, I agree, Linux may not be for everyone. As a matter of fact, I sort of like it NOT being for everyone, that way when people ask "you're in computers, right? I'm having a problem with mine..." I simply say "Windows?" "Yes" - "Sorry, I run Linux" and I can avoid all that.
Long live Windows!
Ah, but there's the rub: You (likely) started out with Windows, and now it feels natural to you.
After unlearning everything I had learned with Windows and learning how to use Linux, I feel that way, but about Linux!
I mean program-installation (package management) seems far more logical in Linux... No need to go hunting around for what I want, then hunting for the download, then trying to find the downloaded package, etc...
Linux is neater: Look in the catalog, then select what you want and it installs.
You can also install things manually if you want or even in your home folder. It's much more logical.
And coming from long experience programming Windows at every level (device-driver through services to gui apps) I can attest that Linux IS more secure by design because its parent specification (POSIX) was just much better thought-out, whereas in Windows it's always been an afterthought.
When you talk about security, it's a bit of a matter of the underlying filesystem, isn't it? If you were to use FAT32 instead of NTFS then the security would be reduced quite a bit.
Same thing in Linux, I suppose...
I'll have to take your word for it, Blake.
I gave up at Windows XP. It was just not good enough for me.
I'm sure that Windows 7 has improved though. I used Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, WFW 3.11, Win95, Win98, NOT WinME, Win2K and WinXP and each one of them got succesively better up until WinXP, which I felt was less stable than Win2K.
It's just that I don't care anymore. Once you really give Linux a shot, you see that it is more thought-out, has better quality, security, etc...
As a computing platform, it is a shame it is not embraced by more vendors because then we would have more progress, truer competition instead of what we have now, which is MS's predatory lock-in tactics for their clients and exclusionary tactics for their competitors.
Yup, Linux fanboi here.
Look, I wasn't kidding, that WAS my experience six years ago.
That's why I wrote 'based on a true story'.
I started out pretty inept with Linux and back then it wasn't as slick as it is today. Those things explain the trouble I had initially.
But I stuck with it because after the installation was done, it was a delight.
And the end tag of my video "Linux: What do YOU want to do today?" should probably have read "Linux: Lets you do what do YOU want to do today"
Thanks for the feedback. ;-)
Now I know how Spielberg felt facing focus groups
No, it was Gentoo, six years ago. It didn't have a graphical installer back then and I chose to install from source. Can't remember if there was also a stage-3 back then...
I didn't know or understand very much about Linux back then and after screwing up 3 times and starting over (which in hindsight was unnecessary) and getting a not-very powerful machine to compile everything, three days HAD passed.
Remember, my example was based on a true story (mine)
But the silver lining (and the point I was trying to make) is that since then I've NEVER had to reinstall from scratch, unlike Windows forces you to do far too often.
Yet, my computer is always right up to date and running the very latest kernel and userspace.
Linux is way more seamless that way, especially since it is not based around an artificial must-upgrade-every-time-MS-decides scheme.
I suppose if I had to sum it up my bottom line would be that Linux required more effort up front, but is far more rewarding subsequently.
My video would be a split-screen labelled Linux on the left side and Windows on the right side.
The video begins with left-side user installing Linux and right-side user installing Windows.
The time span shows Left installing Linux, messing up, starting over two or three times and text that says "time elapsed: 3 days" at the end of which the user looks a bit tired but finally satisfied.
During this, the user on the right side pops in the Windows XP disk and installs Windows mostly by clicking OK. A text appears that says "time elapsed: 2 hours"
Then both the left and right users sit down and start using their computers.
Many quick-succession shots follow, indicating passage of time.
On the left side, the Linux user sits and uses his computer as the caption indicates the passage of time: 3 months, 6 months, a year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, 6 years... This goes on with no end in sight. The user is oblivious to everything as he is absorbed in actually using his computer now.
During this time, the user on the right repeatedly complains that his computer is getting slower and slower. He reluctantly stops every three months and backs up his files, angrily wipes everything from the computer, reformats and reinstalls everything. This happens over and over, with the user becoming more and more frustrated each time as the user on the left continues using his computer with no interruptions.
The video ends with the user on the right giving up and asking the user on the left for his Linux install disk.
The caption reads "This is based on a true story" and then "Linux: What do YOU want to do today?"
Your analogy IS lacking.
The ISP is not a restaurant with a menu, because on the Internet, you do not obtain content (food) from your ISP.
Rather, the Internet is a cafeteria and the ISP is one of many plate-dispensers in the cafeteria. You put whatever you like in your plate and the plate dispenser has no business deciding if it likes what you're eating, it's just serving plates for you to carry around your food in.
So, um, situation normal, then?
I disagree, they have one of the computer industry's best programmers, who has coded graphical things, yes, and undoubtedly physics simulation things. To a mind like that, a breakthrough in any of the needed algorithms is practically assured.
And anyway, they don't have to develop ALL of it, I'm just talking about how they could refine ONE thing and that could then be used to further others' work... Like how science normally works.
No, they're right.
The know-how of the original moon landings is all but lost now.
This appears to be an attempt to prevent that happening by using open-source software.
One of the arguments we've heard many times in favour of open-source software is that you can always adapt it, move your data into newer environments and make it live on.
It may take them a long time, they may not even be the ones who end up finishing the project, sure, but using open tools and open formats IS the way to go.
You know what?
Your comment makes me wonder what Armadillo Aerospace could come up with (in software) for their own designs and then what technology they would eventually bring back to games as a result...
Wild...
Ironic that this company once ran an ad based on Orwell's 1984 where Apple decries totalitarian control.
I fixed the problem on my Mac-mini: I installed Linux on it.
The cat is next.
And that will never be a problem.
Maybe all the bots are part of the same botnet and were programmed to attack at the first spike.
The fact they are located in different countries doesn't mean anything, it's simply hiding whoever is really behind the attack.