i dont want more light, there's already too much light. it's not really possible to look at the stars without looking through some artificial light anymore:-//
There _is_ need for something like that. Cause - not all books have ISBN (though i wonder what the "primary key" to add/search them to the bookDB would be) - there's no complete database on the net which has a nice API/prococol (you've always to parse the f*ckin amazon or barnes&nobles pages..) - we need a _free_ database.
Now and then you've too many books to keep track of all of them.. you don't know where they are, who you borrowed which book...
And just out of fun - to know how much you spent on books (ok, all this would be data you've to add yourself, but a bookdb would be quite a good start) and so on..
certainly games can be addictive! Anything can be!
perhaps it isnt a physical addiction but at least a psychological. (Though it might be physical as well, that you get addicted to your own hormons/neurotransmitters which are set free when you're playing some ego shooter)
Humans have souls and animals have too, in my opinion.
And it might be possible to "create" creatures which also have souls. But I wonder what they will feel, if they get to know they were "created", "produced" in some labors. I wonder if they will be able to lead a satisfied happy life.
j.
I wonder why things like these are posted on/. I thought it was a news site, not a site for software announcements.
Is slashdot getting freshmeat or what?
j.
ah, thanks, now I know what shots are:) Though I am not in the US I certainly got some.
Sure, it is natural to want to survive, but how far should we go in chosing the ways to do so? Shots, ok. Medicines, ok. Hospitals, ok. Therapheutical cloning, ok. Cloning if the "original" dies, ok. What else? How far? Where should we stop?
In my opinion we should have stopped thousands of years ago..
j.
good point, but it increasing our life expectancy necessarily an improvement? (I also question if using a computer is an improvement over not using it)
I can't find a single good argument which would support this statement.
j.
Excuse me, I do not understand this phrase in the first sentence.
Yea, some time ago people did not live as long as now. Now they live longer. But whatfor? Is it of any use?
It brings up various problems.. overpopulation for example.
Why should humans always get new organs? Should they live forever? If not - how long?
Yea, probably, I would think different if I needed a new heart myself. But it is natural that humans die, they are not born to live forever or to live for 200 years or something like this..
j.
It's not clear whether you still have goals for this software or it already meets all your goals..? On the one hand you say it does all you wanted it to do on the other hand you are searching for someone with "your goals".. just not clear for me..
j.
Other people already said that QT offers multi platform network and threading support.
And this seems to be a multi plattform (linux/win32) library for serial port io.
HTH,
j.
I did not meen to get rid of other kernel trees than the "main Linus tree" (as far as i know e.g. some architectures aren't integrated in this tree too). But I mean it is not very good to have more than one "standard" kernel. It does not make a good appearance.
Of course, perhaps after a while these two kernels would differ more and more from each other so that one of them gets another kernel for "special purposes" (e.g. real time kernel you mentioned above).
Another kernel tree for an area where it is clearly visible other things are needed is not bad. But two kernel where the average user don't know which one to choose are not good in my opinion.
Nice day,
j.
Though I do not think that Linux would have been doomed just because there were two different versions of the kernel out there it would have been probably more difficult for Linux.
So that's good news.
J.
Slashdot Mirror
i dont want more light, there's already too much light. it's not really possible to look at the stars without looking through some artificial light anymore :-//
you still don't understand what society means.
hello guy, this is called society!
There _is_ need for something like that. Cause
- not all books have ISBN (though i wonder what the "primary key" to add/search them to the bookDB would be)
- there's no complete database on the net which has a nice API/prococol (you've always to parse the f*ckin amazon or barnes&nobles pages..)
- we need a _free_ database.
Now and then you've too many books to keep track of all of them.. you don't know where they are, who you borrowed which book...
And just out of fun - to know how much you spent on books (ok, all this would be data you've to add yourself, but a bookdb would be quite a good start) and so on..
certainly games can be addictive! Anything can be!
perhaps it isnt a physical addiction but at least a psychological. (Though it might be physical as well, that you get addicted to your own hormons/neurotransmitters which are set free when you're playing some ego shooter)
well, i tried some jpg2000 photoshop plugin - it wasn't really amazing. quite large files.
It's a pity they're in the armaments industry.. they make really sweet radars and other instruments for yachts..
another april fool's joke?
as long as you dont redistribute the software there's no need to give the source away, if i understand the GPL correctly...
I get most of my spam _from_ Korea. Most of it from the korean telecom. It's a pity that I can't even read the cool offers in these messages..
j.
Humans have souls and animals have too, in my opinion.
And it might be possible to "create" creatures which also have souls. But I wonder what they will feel, if they get to know they were "created", "produced" in some labors. I wonder if they will be able to lead a satisfied happy life.
j.
I wonder why things like these are posted on /. I thought it was a news site, not a site for software announcements.
Is slashdot getting freshmeat or what?
j.
ah, thanks, now I know what shots are :) Though I am not in the US I certainly got some.
Sure, it is natural to want to survive, but how far should we go in chosing the ways to do so? Shots, ok. Medicines, ok. Hospitals, ok. Therapheutical cloning, ok. Cloning if the "original" dies, ok. What else? How far? Where should we stop?
In my opinion we should have stopped thousands of years ago..
j.
good point, but it increasing our life expectancy necessarily an improvement? (I also question if using a computer is an improvement over not using it)
I can't find a single good argument which would support this statement.
j.
Excuse me, I do not understand this phrase in the first sentence.
Yea, some time ago people did not live as long as now. Now they live longer. But whatfor? Is it of any use?
It brings up various problems.. overpopulation for example.
well, i suppose they won't patent the baby but the method of "engineering" this baby.
Why should humans always get new organs? Should they live forever? If not - how long?
Yea, probably, I would think different if I needed a new heart myself. But it is natural that humans die, they are not born to live forever or to live for 200 years or something like this..
j.
Problem is, you won't be able to move there. Only very few people are allowed to move to Sealand..
It's not clear whether you still have goals for this software or it already meets all your goals..? On the one hand you say it does all you wanted it to do on the other hand you are searching for someone with "your goals".. just not clear for me..
j.
Other people already said that QT offers multi platform network and threading support.
And this seems to be a multi plattform (linux/win32) library for serial port io.
HTH,
j.
Though I am not a German, but an Austrian I promised you that the German do not call it Globalisiening but Globalisierung
j.
..probably you won't understand it anyway.
I did not meen to get rid of other kernel trees than the "main Linus tree" (as far as i know e.g. some architectures aren't integrated in this tree too). But I mean it is not very good to have more than one "standard" kernel. It does not make a good appearance.
Of course, perhaps after a while these two kernels would differ more and more from each other so that one of them gets another kernel for "special purposes" (e.g. real time kernel you mentioned above).
Another kernel tree for an area where it is clearly visible other things are needed is not bad. But two kernel where the average user don't know which one to choose are not good in my opinion.
Nice day,
j.
Though I do not think that Linux would have been doomed just because there were two different versions of the kernel out there it would have been probably more difficult for Linux.
So that's good news. J.