I'm not a fullscreen supporter, but in fairness, that is not really an acceptable solution. The zoom feature on my DVD player will zoom only to the center of the picture. Since the area of interest may move around on the screen, you really need some intelligence determining which part of the full picture to show for each frame.
I own a Prius, and it actually has quite a bit of power. Not a sportscar, but substantially more power than my other car, a Toyota Echo. The continuous transmission helps. Rides nice, and I get just over 47 MPG.
Your argument is unrelated. Automatic vs. manual memory management is an entirely different issue than virtual machines vs. native compiled code. It is possible to write a compiler for a language with manual memory management that compiles to a virtual machine just as it is possible to write a compiler that supports an implementation of garbage collection while creating native code. Garbage collection may provide minimal overhead for many software systems, but a virtual machine will always incur a significant performance penalty. This is just the nature of having to run interpreting code underneath the byte code of your program. In fairness, I can see the benefit in some cases of having a cross-platform "compiled" version of your software, but this comes with a price.
A lot of ballots are like this. As someone who voted in Atlanta on Tuesday, I can tell you that the ballots are not like the ones used in Palm Beach County. Choices run only along one side of the page. To stagger choices like they did is very misleading. In the future, I hope they never design a ballot like that again. I do think it's a real shame if someone casts a vote for someone different than who they intended. Your idea that if they're too stupid to figure it out, it's their own fault, is the most backward logic I've ever heard. You might as well be advocating intelligence tests in order to vote. This is the same kind of backward thinking that people used to justify the tests that were used in the past to prevent blacks from voting.
Re:Hacking the Legal System
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
The question, though, is, "How can you defend what you say and still protect your anonymity?" You can't.
If you really want to be anonymous, you have to make sure that no one can trace what you say to you. This could be difficult. Or, you have to make sure that someone along the trail you leave (ISP's, newspaper publishers, etc.) are willing to defend what you say and your right to anonymity for you.
So, if you really want to say something anonymously, you can. You just have to make sure you really are anonymous (and don't expect the law to help you out on that one).
That's a good point you make, but there still needs to be something providing a centripetal force.
So, a single body can spin forever around its center of mass, because each side of the body exerts a centripetal force on the side of the body across from it. But, a single body cannot spin around an arbitrary point in space without an external force of some kind, like gravity keeping the planets in orbit around the sun.
Perhaps Red Hat would rather put its resources into something useful, like making its product better, rather than launching useless FUD. All of the things you mentioned mean nothing to me as a user. I'm not sure why a company would need to make an excuse for not paying for "market research favourable to Linux". I think this speaks more to the credit of Linux that despite a flood of FUD and negative marketing from the competition, the user base continues to grow. There is no need to fight back; the truth will become clear in time.
If I go buy a VCR, I know it will play my VHS videotapes, regardless of the manufacturer.
If I go buy a AA battery, I know it will fit in my tape player, regardless of the manufacturer.
If I go buy a PC processor, I'm pretty sure it will still be able to run Windows regardless of whether it's made by Intel or AMD. (Whether it will fit in my motherboard...)
Why is this? Because there are standards. The competing companies have to support these standards or they would have no business at all. If Microsoft gets broken up into several different OS companies, they would all have to remain compatible, because who would buy the OS that didn't run the standard programs? The companies can improve on the quality or performance of the OS, or even add new features (that the competing companies would have to quickly catch up on in order to keep their business). As long as they competed fairly (that's a big IF), this is the way things would be. No inconveniences. The OS would get better and cheaper faster, and the consumer wins.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a fullscreen supporter, but in fairness, that is not really an acceptable solution. The zoom feature on my DVD player will zoom only to the center of the picture. Since the area of interest may move around on the screen, you really need some intelligence determining which part of the full picture to show for each frame.
Strange... It asked me to register.
I own a Prius, and it actually has quite a bit of power. Not a sportscar, but substantially more power than my other car, a Toyota Echo. The continuous transmission helps. Rides nice, and I get just over 47 MPG.
Surely you don't mean to suggest that a compiler can't optimize code for the system for which you are compiling it?
Your argument is unrelated. Automatic vs. manual memory management is an entirely different issue than virtual machines vs. native compiled code. It is possible to write a compiler for a language with manual memory management that compiles to a virtual machine just as it is possible to write a compiler that supports an implementation of garbage collection while creating native code. Garbage collection may provide minimal overhead for many software systems, but a virtual machine will always incur a significant performance penalty. This is just the nature of having to run interpreting code underneath the byte code of your program. In fairness, I can see the benefit in some cases of having a cross-platform "compiled" version of your software, but this comes with a price.
However, NAT also includes the ability to statically map real IP addresses to private IP addresses inside the firewall.
In which case, you need another real IP address, meaning NAT doesn't help with the problem of limited addresses for true two-way connectivity.
Python is a good teaching language for both.
A lot of ballots are like this. As someone who voted in Atlanta on Tuesday, I can tell you that the ballots are not like the ones used in Palm Beach County. Choices run only along one side of the page. To stagger choices like they did is very misleading. In the future, I hope they never design a ballot like that again. I do think it's a real shame if someone casts a vote for someone different than who they intended. Your idea that if they're too stupid to figure it out, it's their own fault, is the most backward logic I've ever heard. You might as well be advocating intelligence tests in order to vote. This is the same kind of backward thinking that people used to justify the tests that were used in the past to prevent blacks from voting.
The question, though, is, "How can you defend what you say and still protect your anonymity?" You can't.
If you really want to be anonymous, you have to make sure that no one can trace what you say to you. This could be difficult. Or, you have to make sure that someone along the trail you leave (ISP's, newspaper publishers, etc.) are willing to defend what you say and your right to anonymity for you.
So, if you really want to say something anonymously, you can. You just have to make sure you really are anonymous (and don't expect the law to help you out on that one).
Are you saying submitting this type of announcement to popular internet forums frequented by developers is a bad idea?
What, then, would you suggest?
That's a good point you make, but there still needs to be something providing a centripetal force.
So, a single body can spin forever around its center of mass, because each side of the body exerts a centripetal force on the side of the body across from it. But, a single body cannot spin around an arbitrary point in space without an external force of some kind, like gravity keeping the planets in orbit around the sun.
Perhaps Red Hat would rather put its resources into something useful, like making its product better, rather than launching useless FUD. All of the things you mentioned mean nothing to me as a user. I'm not sure why a company would need to make an excuse for not paying for "market research favourable to Linux". I think this speaks more to the credit of Linux that despite a flood of FUD and negative marketing from the competition, the user base continues to grow. There is no need to fight back; the truth will become clear in time.
This isn't the way it has to be.
If I go buy a VCR, I know it will play my VHS videotapes, regardless of the manufacturer.
If I go buy a AA battery, I know it will fit in my tape player, regardless of the manufacturer.
If I go buy a PC processor, I'm pretty sure it will still be able to run Windows regardless of whether it's made by Intel or AMD. (Whether it will fit in my motherboard...)
Why is this? Because there are standards. The competing companies have to support these standards or they would have no business at all. If Microsoft gets broken up into several different OS companies, they would all have to remain compatible, because who would buy the OS that didn't run the standard programs? The companies can improve on the quality or performance of the OS, or even add new features (that the competing companies would have to quickly catch up on in order to keep their business). As long as they competed fairly (that's a big IF), this is the way things would be. No inconveniences. The OS would get better and cheaper faster, and the consumer wins.