Looks like Carter is the only anomoly in president: height table. If we made a similar table with IQ, who do you think would be the anomoly? (Here's a hint - the variance is in the same relative direction as Carter's height, and he's still president...)
You can ask my chiropractor - he will say "don't do it".
Although my problems were not so much the two monitors, but my desk setup. I have to 19" monitors attached to my Mac, and I did not have akeyboard tray, so I had to hunch to reach the keyboard and see th emonitors at the same time. Since I added a keyboard tray, it has been good, though. I have them palced side-by side, so when I move the cursor from left to right or vice versa I don't have to snap my head over to another area. If I could find a 30" 8x3 ratio monitor, I would be laughing;-)
"X is slow" "X is bloated" "X is old" "X needs to be rewritten"
Blah, blah blah, blah, blah. Blah. I'm going to be honest here, workstation performance is abysmal on any of the recent flavours of Unix, expecially gnome/KDE, and expecially XF86. There are basically two reasons for this: 1) XFree86 sucks 2) and XF86 sucks (I am not being sarcastic - please hear me out...) Xfree86 sucks because it does not have good drivers. Many functions run unaccelerated on cards that have all kinds of cool acceleration features. It seems some of these features have been written, but not added to the tree ( or so I have been told.) XFree86 sucks because it has not been proactive in implementing the features/extensions required by the newer toolkits like gtk+/qt. Are you aware that gtk pushes everything as a bitmap through the X protocol for each expose event? XRender is probably the only instance where the toolkits waited for an X extension to be developed before added in a feature that required it - generally the toolkit authors, rather than wait for an X extension or piece of functionality, they will implement it in the toolkit so that the client just pushes the pixels dow to the X server.
Do not look to discard X. X is in fact the one thing that we have that Windows and Mac do not have. It gives us years of backwards compatiblity, and an extensible, network transparent architecture. Instead, we should put our hopes in Xouvert and similar projects that are looking to give us a world-class X server, and the pieces that the toolkit authors need to optimize their toolkits for X.
Nothing is stopping them other han the fact that they don't have to. SCO is a nuisance, and SGI has chosen to only reply to them when it is required. After all, HP and IBM both have the SYSV source, and they are not publishing their comparator results, are they? It was mentioned in the last SGI vs. SCO thread that SGI does not have stacks of cash to toss at the scu^H^H^Hlawyers like IBM does, so it is in their best interes to lay low.
SGI wants it to be blatantly obvious that they have done nothing to deserve the wrath of SCO. Their approach is differnt than IBM - IBM says "Make my day, SCO. Mess with IBM and feel the hurt!!!". SGI says, "Very sorry, but we don't know what you're talking about. Now please go away?"
Since SCO is refusing to release that data, SGI does not see any need to - they have clearly washed their hands of the problem, and don't intend to provoke SCO any more than they have to.
Personally, I am very impressed with SGI's attitude in this whole ordeal - they stay out of it until SCO says something stupid, and then they very matter of factly point out that SCO is wrong, and carry on.
They don't need to fight hard. This is one time when SGI get's to ride on IBM's coat-tails. And we all know that SCO cannot win this suit - and if they did, SGI would be in even more trouble anyways.
Yes, SCO is costing SGI a lot of money, but this has to look good on SGI - with SCO yammering on and on about indemnity for customers, and wailing about linux's "DNA" coming from Unix (yet not producing any evidence to back it up - SGI is taking the practical approach. Sort of a moral high road. They are basically saying "your claims are bogus, but we doubled-checked just to make sure, and this is all we found."
After all, we know that SGI does have a copy of this mystical Sys V code that SCO won't let anyone see (even though we all know what's there..."
However, that may just be wishful thinking on their part.
No, it isn't. Read Eric Raymond's analysis of the code in question, it is very clear that the code has been released at some point under a license that would permit it's use.
That was intended as a hypothetical. I have never played AA, so i wouldn't know, but if the game required saving, it could be done with removable media like a USB hard drive.
I don't think the intention is for it to be exclusive, but rather that it is not exclusive. The point is that many programmers believe that designing a UI is a creative process, because at some point they designed a UI and they were told it was ugly. This is an unfortunate comment, since the rejection of the UI was more likely on cognitive grounds rather than aesthetic, but the word ugly can apply in either case.
There are fundamental rules of UI design, and there are UI best practices. When these are adhered to, then the UI will be cognitively appealing to the user. In addition, there are liberties that a UI designer may take, and innovations that can be made (per application) that can add up to a smashing UI. But if you are unaware of the rules and conventions, you will fail to create a good UI, and if you don't even know that the rules exist you may be liable to blame it on a gap in creativity rather than a failure to fulfill a logical design.
I don't think you can seriously say that UNIX is dying and say that Linux is killing it. Linux IS UNIX.
McBride?!!! Wake up, McBride!!! I can't pass in my code in your handwriting, now can I?...
Seriously though, linux is not unix. or at least. UNIX is the crufty old stuff that linux used to want to be like. Linux may look like UNIX in some ways, but it is not. It does it's own stuff now.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe this is what you are looking for.
Looks like Carter is the only anomoly in president: height table. If we made a similar table with IQ, who do you think would be the anomoly? (Here's a hint - the variance is in the same relative direction as Carter's height, and he's still president...)
Proteus is working fine, so is Gaim, and (gasp) MSN Messenger. Upgrade your clients, and chill out...
'Rediculous' would be a better word.
... trollin', trollin', trollin', keep those wagons trollin'...
Ridiculous would be a great word... if it was spelled correctly!
You can ask my chiropractor - he will say "don't do it".
;-)
Although my problems were not so much the two monitors, but my desk setup. I have to 19" monitors attached to my Mac, and I did not have akeyboard tray, so I had to hunch to reach the keyboard and see th emonitors at the same time. Since I added a keyboard tray, it has been good, though. I have them palced side-by side, so when I move the cursor from left to right or vice versa I don't have to snap my head over to another area. If I could find a 30" 8x3 ratio monitor, I would be laughing
"X is slow"
"X is bloated"
"X is old"
"X needs to be rewritten"
Blah, blah blah, blah, blah. Blah. I'm going to be honest here, workstation performance is abysmal on any of the recent flavours of Unix, expecially gnome/KDE, and expecially XF86. There are basically two reasons for this:
1) XFree86 sucks
2) and XF86 sucks
(I am not being sarcastic - please hear me out...) Xfree86 sucks because it does not have good drivers. Many functions run unaccelerated on cards that have all kinds of cool acceleration features. It seems some of these features have been written, but not added to the tree ( or so I have been told.)
XFree86 sucks because it has not been proactive in implementing the features/extensions required by the newer toolkits like gtk+/qt. Are you aware that gtk pushes everything as a bitmap through the X protocol for each expose event? XRender is probably the only instance where the toolkits waited for an X extension to be developed before added in a feature that required it - generally the toolkit authors, rather than wait for an X extension or piece of functionality, they will implement it in the toolkit so that the client just pushes the pixels dow to the X server.
Do not look to discard X. X is in fact the one thing that we have that Windows and Mac do not have. It gives us years of backwards compatiblity, and an extensible, network transparent architecture. Instead, we should put our hopes in Xouvert and similar projects that are looking to give us a world-class X server, and the pieces that the toolkit authors need to optimize their toolkits for X.
SCO license terminations are like the points on "Whose Line is it Anyway?"
SGI's letter to the Linux community
Nothing is stopping them other han the fact that they don't have to. SCO is a nuisance, and SGI has chosen to only reply to them when it is required. After all, HP and IBM both have the SYSV source, and they are not publishing their comparator results, are they? It was mentioned in the last SGI vs. SCO thread that SGI does not have stacks of cash to toss at the scu^H^H^Hlawyers like IBM does, so it is in their best interes to lay low.
SGI wants it to be blatantly obvious that they have done nothing to deserve the wrath of SCO. Their approach is differnt than IBM - IBM says "Make my day, SCO. Mess with IBM and feel the hurt!!!". SGI says, "Very sorry, but we don't know what you're talking about. Now please go away?"
Since SCO is refusing to release that data, SGI does not see any need to - they have clearly washed their hands of the problem, and don't intend to provoke SCO any more than they have to.
Personally, I am very impressed with SGI's attitude in this whole ordeal - they stay out of it until SCO says something stupid, and then they very matter of factly point out that SCO is wrong, and carry on.
No, it doesn't. The SGI letter and the LKML indicate that there were also very convincing technical reasons to remove the code.
They don't need to fight hard. This is one time when SGI get's to ride on IBM's coat-tails. And we all know that SCO cannot win this suit - and if they did, SGI would be in even more trouble anyways.
Yes, SCO is costing SGI a lot of money, but this has to look good on SGI - with SCO yammering on and on about indemnity for customers, and wailing about linux's "DNA" coming from Unix (yet not producing any evidence to back it up - SGI is taking the practical approach. Sort of a moral high road. They are basically saying "your claims are bogus, but we doubled-checked just to make sure, and this is all we found."
After all, we know that SGI does have a copy of this mystical Sys V code that SCO won't let anyone see (even though we all know what's there..."
However, that may just be wishful thinking on their part.
No, it isn't. Read Eric Raymond's analysis of the code in question, it is very clear that the code has been released at some point under a license that would permit it's use.
That was intended as a hypothetical. I have never played AA, so i wouldn't know, but if the game required saving, it could be done with removable media like a USB hard drive.
I don't think the intention is for it to be exclusive, but rather that it is not exclusive. The point is that many programmers believe that designing a UI is a creative process, because at some point they designed a UI and they were told it was ugly. This is an unfortunate comment, since the rejection of the UI was more likely on cognitive grounds rather than aesthetic, but the word ugly can apply in either case.
;-)
There are fundamental rules of UI design, and there are UI best practices. When these are adhered to, then the UI will be cognitively appealing to the user. In addition, there are liberties that a UI designer may take, and innovations that can be made (per application) that can add up to a smashing UI. But if you are unaware of the rules and conventions, you will fail to create a good UI, and if you don't even know that the rules exist you may be liable to blame it on a gap in creativity rather than a failure to fulfill a logical design.
Phew. that was a mouthful
I don't know much about AA, but wouldn't you want to save a game somehow? How do you do that?
;-)
You could probably use some kind of USB key, or *gasp* a floppy
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Should you really use the word "poof" when posting about an article on "the three-fingered salute"?
sorry google - I think that should be Darth McBride...
And in other news, the Ford Focus now rivals the Chev Cavalier for speed.
Next reporter, please...
there. i had no mod points when i read your comment yesterday. feel better now? i do ;-)
I think this is my worst post ever.
No argument here.
Dude, I wish I had mod points for you...
I don't think you can seriously say that UNIX is dying and say that Linux is killing it. Linux IS UNIX.
...
McBride?!!! Wake up, McBride!!! I can't pass in my code in your handwriting, now can I?
Seriously though, linux is not unix. or at least. UNIX is the crufty old stuff that linux used to want to be like. Linux may look like UNIX in some ways, but it is not. It does it's own stuff now.