In American English, foot-lovers are podophiles. The Greek vowel stems are actually a bit ambiguous between (don't trust unicode so just interpret the ascii) p[e|o]s (foot) and p[ai|e]s (child).
My last diatribe reminded me of the one thing I REALLY want ported to linux, the ral driver from openbsd. I know there is a project underway to do it, but I'd really love to get that ASAP so I can get rid of my one OpenBSD box that, for logistical reasons, can only use my linksys USB wireless receiver.
... but I can't think of any. Everything *I* use my computers for is already better on Linux than on the competition. The only things I'd really like to see ported are some things from BSD, particularly drivers like ral.
When MS Office can export PDFs and Shockwaves with a single click I'll consider it an alternative to Open Office. When Outlook includes basic crypto support like public key signing and encrypting, it might be an alternative to Evolution or Thunderbird. When Quickbooks stops corrupting its own database every few months I'll consider it a possible (but still ugly) alternative to Gnucash. When iTunes plays oggs and takes plugins it might possibly stand in for XMMS.
The list keeps going: when Windows XP finds all of my network interfaces and sound cards like Knoppix or OpenBSD do, I'll consider it ready for my desktop. I don't want to spend time downloading drivers (which is especially hard when it's the network card driver I need). When a proprietary OS includes a decent package / version management system, it might be usable (I know OS X includes Fink, but that kind of proves my point, doesn't it?).
I make my living programming and doing network administration. When the day comes that I can install Windows on a box, leave it be, and have some sense that it will be roughly the way I left it in a few months like I can with Linux or BSD, I'll consider it a viable alternative, though it's irritating to have to download perl and clisp (don't even get me started about how few decent LISP compilers are available for Windows!) every time I go to a new machine to work.
Different strokes, I guess. Lilypond's superiority (to me, at least) over Finale and Sibelius was one of the things that pulled me away from the Dark Side. I could never get braces quite right on Finale and they just work with lilypond.
Have you tried denemo? It's a really nice GUI front end to lilypond, with the added benefit that when the morendo isn't stretching out exactly right you can just edit the markup to make it do exactly what you want.
To be clear, FCC regulations do not allow one to break copyright law.
Yes, let me be clear. I was not meaning to imply that FCC regulations somehow free developers from their responsibilities under the GPL. Just that in practice they tend to prevent full compliance with the GPL. I remember reading something Linus wrote about binary-only drivers and how something like a HAL he could turn a blind eye to (since they're often developed for multiple systems and so not a derivative work in a real sense) but he didn't like the idea of a full binary-only driver developed specifically for Linux.
Still, if you take any distro that ships with one of these binary or half-binary drivers (take, for instance, Knoppix which ships madwifi), if you note the dmesg it warns you that adding the HAL taints the kernel, which means in theory they shouldn't distribute it any more. But, it's a blind eye that most of us seem willing to turn.
I am just curious whether or not BC is violating GPL by not supplying the code, since they have done the work.
Wireless technology is one area where FCC regulations have trumped open source licenses. If you look at atheros, I think the only system that doesn't rely on the binary-only HAL is openbsd's ath driver; the rest use the HAL.
That said, WRT54G's code has been released (after a little scuffling with EFF, IIRC) but they may well be using HAL's too.
It's interesting how much people's distro path depends on when they started. I installed my first Linux (RedHat... 6 I think) in '99. Then Suse in '01, then OpenBSD in '02, and since '03 alternating between that and Gentoo based on whichever one supports whatever piece of hardware is giving me trouble.
Though I've never used Debian (apart from at work) I do appreciate its existence. I see Debian as sort of a Reference Implementation of GNU/Linux (that may well have been their goal, for all I know). I also may be the only person who *won't* complain about how long it takes packages to get included in the ports tree (or whatever apt calls it). "Stable" is called "stable" for a reason (and has nothing to do with what most people think): the applications in a stable platform do not significantly change until a complete version upgrade.
Plus, some of the management tools developed by the Debian team are great. Common-lisp-controller is just beautiful.
Obviously I can't speak to your company since I know nothing about it, but if they're like most outfits I have consulted for, they are megamaniacally convinced against all evidence that their business model is unique and the key to their future riches. I have seen quicksort marked "Proprietary - Confidential". I have seen pay schedules (every other friday excepting when the friday is a holiday, in which case the preceding thursday) marked "Proprietary - NDA required".
The simple fact is for most businesses their IP is worth next to nothing. Several other companies have the same idea and are developing it just as quickly. As history has proved from Edison (heck, from Gutenburg) on down, it doesn't matter who comes up with the idea first, it matters who gets a palatable, reasonably-priced product on the market with decent marketing first.
If you were setting up SSH tunnels, I'd get pissed off too. That's called a backdoor into the network from an outside untrusted computer.
Did you read his post? Outbound ports 80 and 443 were allowed. If *any* outbound TCP ports are allowed, ssh tunnels are allowed.
This gets to one of my pet peeves: the illusion of security by port-restriction. People forget that well-known port assignments are nothing more than convention. TCP port 80 does *not* mean http. TCP port 53 does *not* mean DNS XFR. You can only prevent remote attacks by limiting listening services on individual hosts. More to the point, if you allow any non-proxied outbound traffic, you are allowing all non-proxied outbound traffic. You just may not realize it.
In your case, if 90% of your solutions come from groups then you really should invest in some Cisco and Microsoft certification to teach you how to administer properly.
*choke* *cough* Thanks. Brand new laptop, just shipped today. Now I've got Mountain Dew all over it. You reek of PHB, dude. IHBT. IHL.
*shrug* My company is subscribed to MS's "Action Pack" and my bosses don't know it. As far as I'm concerned everything MS makes is gratis... Still doesn't make me use it.
Well obviously if you consider the entire universe, none are. If you just consider the earth as a system and take the import of energy from the sun in the form of some biofuels, for the earth it's a net energy gain.
Society has become happier, healthier and wealthier for 6000 years.
Ummm... if you ignore the periods from about 400AD to about 1400 AD in most of Europe, a similar stretch a few centuries later in the Americas, and most of the 1st millenium AD in the far east.
I can name nothing that government does that is a net good.
1) it's never too late to avert an environmental disaster; it just costs more the longer you wait.
It was too late for the Easter Islanders the moment they cut down their last tree. It was too late for the Norse in Greenland once they ate their last cow. Those were, admittedly, isolated ecosystems but there still will always be a point of no return beyond which a species is not viable in an ecosystem -- even a worldwide one.
The new PlayStation will be revolutionary... it will mark a breakthrough in computing power. It will cook your dinner. It will smite your enemies. It will do your job for you.
It's the same absolutely false and empty promises they hyped the PS2 with -- which, incidentally, killed off the Dreamcast. I have trouble believing anything about any Sony product now until the thing is actually in front of me.
With the possible exception of hard disks, the part that is [overwhelmingly] the most likely to fail, and, several years down the road, among the most difficult to replace [because form factors will have moved on to new standards] is the power supply.
I hate to "me too", but these are golden words and I'm out of mod points.
The advantage of MS Office is the ability to create apps on top of it with Visual Basic, etc. Whether or not you think this is the best technology in the world, it works well enough for many companies and OpenOffice has nothing like it.
Ummm... yes it does. It's the same thing except it uses javascript instead of vbscript. Unless you mean the way the entire win32 API is exposed to VBA, which is Evil and Wrong and is disabled on any corporate setup anyways...
RIAA's (along with several famous musicians') problem is that technology has rendered their way of doing business obsolete.
Why does RIAA hate file-sharing? They're not stupid; they know the actual "loss" is nowhere near what they claim they lose (whether it's a loss at all is debateable). They aren't worried about losing customers: they are worried about losing musicians.
Professional-quality audio production software can now be bought for a few thousand dollars. Peer-to-peer networks as well as other Internet protocols allow musicians to distribute music without a label. Anyone with the talent, time, and guts can market his or her music without the need for a label, and get people to go to his or her concerts which is where musicians make money anyways.
A lot of my favorite bands don't have labels: they distribute their music through p2p, on the web, and through tape/CD/mp3 swapping. That's what keeps RIAA up at night: the idea that musicians (and then consumers) would see that RIAA doesn't actually serve any purpose. (A&R? Yeah, maybe if they actually did that... heck they outsource A&R to reality TV shows now...)
I'm sure musicians who are addicted to album sales want to use the legal system to fix the world at the stage of early-90s technology -- I'm also sure horse stablers wanted to fix the world at the stage before the internal combustion engine. You don't have a "right" to make a living in any particular way, though you have a right to try.
OK, here's my cynical answer as a UNIX admin: I limit user access because it's one way to keep my position appearing valuable. As long as I'm the guy they have to go to for any system changes, and as long as I can tell the PHB's I'm monitoring their activity, my job sticks around.
Doesn't fly, because you postulated that you've already got a complete list of prime numbers. If you've already got the list, saying that something isn't ON the list is trivial. So either Q+1 ought to be on the list, for being prime, or Q+1 is not prime, despite the mathematical definition.
Sigh... this is Euclid's proof; I didn't make it up. The claim is that there is no greatest prime number (a negative statement). You create a reductio proof by assuming the opposite and showing it leads to a contradiction. The contradiction is as follows:
If there were a greatest prime number, we could create a list of all prime numbers, since there must be a finite number of them in that case, and we have a sieve method for getting all prime numbers less than a given number.
Since that list would be a complete list of all prime numbers (by the hypothesis, there would be no prime numbers greater than P, and we have listed all prime numbers less than or equal to P), no numbers greater than P can be prime.
But, Q+1 is shown to be prime, and greater than P
So, since our supposition that there is a greatest prime number has yielded a contradiction, the supposition must be false.
That is how Euclid proved a negative, namely that there is no greatest prime number.
Since this is impossible, you can't use it in your proof.
Haven't studied much math, have you? That's how a reductio works. You postulate something impossible (but not yet proven impossible), show that it leads to a contradiction, and by that show the posulate is not true. That's how you prove a negative, which is what started this whole thread.
Heck, about half of Euclid's Elements is proven in that way.
Slashdot Mirror
In American English, foot-lovers are podophiles. The Greek vowel stems are actually a bit ambiguous between (don't trust unicode so just interpret the ascii) p[e|o]s (foot) and p[ai|e]s (child).
My last diatribe reminded me of the one thing I REALLY want ported to linux, the ral driver from openbsd. I know there is a project underway to do it, but I'd really love to get that ASAP so I can get rid of my one OpenBSD box that, for logistical reasons, can only use my linksys USB wireless receiver.
... but I can't think of any. Everything *I* use my computers for is already better on Linux than on the competition. The only things I'd really like to see ported are some things from BSD, particularly drivers like ral.
When MS Office can export PDFs and Shockwaves with a single click I'll consider it an alternative to Open Office. When Outlook includes basic crypto support like public key signing and encrypting, it might be an alternative to Evolution or Thunderbird. When Quickbooks stops corrupting its own database every few months I'll consider it a possible (but still ugly) alternative to Gnucash. When iTunes plays oggs and takes plugins it might possibly stand in for XMMS.
The list keeps going: when Windows XP finds all of my network interfaces and sound cards like Knoppix or OpenBSD do, I'll consider it ready for my desktop. I don't want to spend time downloading drivers (which is especially hard when it's the network card driver I need). When a proprietary OS includes a decent package / version management system, it might be usable (I know OS X includes Fink, but that kind of proves my point, doesn't it?).
I make my living programming and doing network administration. When the day comes that I can install Windows on a box, leave it be, and have some sense that it will be roughly the way I left it in a few months like I can with Linux or BSD, I'll consider it a viable alternative, though it's irritating to have to download perl and clisp (don't even get me started about how few decent LISP compilers are available for Windows!) every time I go to a new machine to work.
Different strokes, I guess. Lilypond's superiority (to me, at least) over Finale and Sibelius was one of the things that pulled me away from the Dark Side. I could never get braces quite right on Finale and they just work with lilypond.
Have you tried denemo? It's a really nice GUI front end to lilypond, with the added benefit that when the morendo isn't stretching out exactly right you can just edit the markup to make it do exactly what you want.
Yes, let me be clear. I was not meaning to imply that FCC regulations somehow free developers from their responsibilities under the GPL. Just that in practice they tend to prevent full compliance with the GPL. I remember reading something Linus wrote about binary-only drivers and how something like a HAL he could turn a blind eye to (since they're often developed for multiple systems and so not a derivative work in a real sense) but he didn't like the idea of a full binary-only driver developed specifically for Linux.
Still, if you take any distro that ships with one of these binary or half-binary drivers (take, for instance, Knoppix which ships madwifi), if you note the dmesg it warns you that adding the HAL taints the kernel, which means in theory they shouldn't distribute it any more. But, it's a blind eye that most of us seem willing to turn.
Wireless technology is one area where FCC regulations have trumped open source licenses. If you look at atheros, I think the only system that doesn't rely on the binary-only HAL is openbsd's ath driver; the rest use the HAL.
That said, WRT54G's code has been released (after a little scuffling with EFF, IIRC) but they may well be using HAL's too.
Nothing, except that when Knoppix boots you don't know the root password.
OS X does that too, last time I checked: you can sudo but unless you explicitly set the root password you never know what it is.
It's interesting how much people's distro path depends on when they started. I installed my first Linux (RedHat... 6 I think) in '99. Then Suse in '01, then OpenBSD in '02, and since '03 alternating between that and Gentoo based on whichever one supports whatever piece of hardware is giving me trouble.
Though I've never used Debian (apart from at work) I do appreciate its existence. I see Debian as sort of a Reference Implementation of GNU/Linux (that may well have been their goal, for all I know). I also may be the only person who *won't* complain about how long it takes packages to get included in the ports tree (or whatever apt calls it). "Stable" is called "stable" for a reason (and has nothing to do with what most people think): the applications in a stable platform do not significantly change until a complete version upgrade.
Plus, some of the management tools developed by the Debian team are great. Common-lisp-controller is just beautiful.
Obviously I can't speak to your company since I know nothing about it, but if they're like most outfits I have consulted for, they are megamaniacally convinced against all evidence that their business model is unique and the key to their future riches. I have seen quicksort marked "Proprietary - Confidential". I have seen pay schedules (every other friday excepting when the friday is a holiday, in which case the preceding thursday) marked "Proprietary - NDA required".
The simple fact is for most businesses their IP is worth next to nothing. Several other companies have the same idea and are developing it just as quickly. As history has proved from Edison (heck, from Gutenburg) on down, it doesn't matter who comes up with the idea first, it matters who gets a palatable, reasonably-priced product on the market with decent marketing first.
Did you read his post? Outbound ports 80 and 443 were allowed. If *any* outbound TCP ports are allowed, ssh tunnels are allowed.
This gets to one of my pet peeves: the illusion of security by port-restriction. People forget that well-known port assignments are nothing more than convention. TCP port 80 does *not* mean http. TCP port 53 does *not* mean DNS XFR. You can only prevent remote attacks by limiting listening services on individual hosts. More to the point, if you allow any non-proxied outbound traffic, you are allowing all non-proxied outbound traffic. You just may not realize it.
*choke* *cough* Thanks. Brand new laptop, just shipped today. Now I've got Mountain Dew all over it. You reek of PHB, dude. IHBT. IHL.
*shrug* My company is subscribed to MS's "Action Pack" and my bosses don't know it. As far as I'm concerned everything MS makes is gratis... Still doesn't make me use it.
Well, according to the text, pretty much, yeah:
Well obviously if you consider the entire universe, none are. If you just consider the earth as a system and take the import of energy from the sun in the form of some biofuels, for the earth it's a net energy gain.
Ummm... if you ignore the periods from about 400AD to about 1400 AD in most of Europe, a similar stretch a few centuries later in the Americas, and most of the 1st millenium AD in the far east.
<obpython>The aquaduct...
It was too late for the Easter Islanders the moment they cut down their last tree. It was too late for the Norse in Greenland once they ate their last cow. Those were, admittedly, isolated ecosystems but there still will always be a point of no return beyond which a species is not viable in an ecosystem -- even a worldwide one.
Hmm...
The new PlayStation will be revolutionary... it will mark a breakthrough in computing power. It will cook your dinner. It will smite your enemies. It will do your job for you.
It's the same absolutely false and empty promises they hyped the PS2 with -- which, incidentally, killed off the Dreamcast. I have trouble believing anything about any Sony product now until the thing is actually in front of me.
I hate to "me too", but these are golden words and I'm out of mod points.
Ummm... yes it does. It's the same thing except it uses javascript instead of vbscript. Unless you mean the way the entire win32 API is exposed to VBA, which is Evil and Wrong and is disabled on any corporate setup anyways...
RIAA's (along with several famous musicians') problem is that technology has rendered their way of doing business obsolete.
Why does RIAA hate file-sharing? They're not stupid; they know the actual "loss" is nowhere near what they claim they lose (whether it's a loss at all is debateable). They aren't worried about losing customers: they are worried about losing musicians.
Professional-quality audio production software can now be bought for a few thousand dollars. Peer-to-peer networks as well as other Internet protocols allow musicians to distribute music without a label. Anyone with the talent, time, and guts can market his or her music without the need for a label, and get people to go to his or her concerts which is where musicians make money anyways.
A lot of my favorite bands don't have labels: they distribute their music through p2p, on the web, and through tape/CD/mp3 swapping. That's what keeps RIAA up at night: the idea that musicians (and then consumers) would see that RIAA doesn't actually serve any purpose. (A&R? Yeah, maybe if they actually did that... heck they outsource A&R to reality TV shows now...)
I'm sure musicians who are addicted to album sales want to use the legal system to fix the world at the stage of early-90s technology -- I'm also sure horse stablers wanted to fix the world at the stage before the internal combustion engine. You don't have a "right" to make a living in any particular way, though you have a right to try.
OK, here's my cynical answer as a UNIX admin: I limit user access because it's one way to keep my position appearing valuable. As long as I'm the guy they have to go to for any system changes, and as long as I can tell the PHB's I'm monitoring their activity, my job sticks around.
Why should a pay for a product that has no-cost competitors that are "good enough"?
Sigh... this is Euclid's proof; I didn't make it up. The claim is that there is no greatest prime number (a negative statement). You create a reductio proof by assuming the opposite and showing it leads to a contradiction. The contradiction is as follows:
- If there were a greatest prime number, we could create a list of all prime numbers, since there must be a finite number of them in that case, and we have a sieve method for getting all prime numbers less than a given number.
- Since that list would be a complete list of all prime numbers (by the hypothesis, there would be no prime numbers greater than P, and we have listed all prime numbers less than or equal to P), no numbers greater than P can be prime.
- But, Q+1 is shown to be prime, and greater than P
- So, since our supposition that there is a greatest prime number has yielded a contradiction, the supposition must be false.
That is how Euclid proved a negative, namely that there is no greatest prime number.Haven't studied much math, have you? That's how a reductio works. You postulate something impossible (but not yet proven impossible), show that it leads to a contradiction, and by that show the posulate is not true. That's how you prove a negative, which is what started this whole thread.
Heck, about half of Euclid's Elements is proven in that way.
You now are certain it's a hoax because the same paper that reported it as fact now has retracted?
The important thing, Mr. Bishop, is that I was never here...