Re:backslashes and compatability
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
"The syntax of the command is incorrect"
c.f. what I said about the historical use of '/' as an option separator. cmd.exe and most of the commands that ship with it interpret arguments with leading slashes as switches.
Try using forward slashes in a relative path -- you will need to put the whole argument in double quotes, but it will work.
For example (from c:\) : cd "winnt/system32"
They had to do it this way for cmd.exe to be backwards-compatable with command.com. Not supporting it in the standard file dialog is a little less defensible.
It's not an intrinsic limitation of modern Windows versions in any case. You can use forward slashes in PATH, for example. Any Windows application that doesn't explicitly reject forward slashes will also let you use them (e.g. as commandline arguments).
Re:backslashes and compatability
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Try writing e.g. a C program. You can use forward and backslashes interchangably when calling the relevent Win32 APIs.
Unless the code calling the APIs deliberately chooses to reject forwardslashes (e.g. cmd.exe or the standard file dialog), you can use them pretty much anywhere.
Try using forward slashes in the PATH environment variable, for example.
backslashes and compatability
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Backslashes were used as directory separators in DOS because nested directories were not introduced until several revisions in, and by that time forward slashes had been widely adopted as option indicators.
However, all modern Win32 platforms support forward slashes as directory separators. There are only a few places left (e.g. the standard file dialog) where you still have to use backslashes.
NTFS also supports case-sensitive filenames, though it's not turned on by default for compatibility reasons.
The amount of kinetic energy transferred is surprisingly small. Bullets don't kill people, simple transfer of kinetic energy normally doesn't kill people.
I'd like to see anyone claim that they run off a stock Linus kernel, and have the box fully loaded with Gnome or KDE, and use it heavily for development tasks, or other intensive workloads. Or, god forbid, use it as a heavy-duty server for mail, web, or news.
Well, I do. 'course 2.4 is more of a Marcello kernel than a Linus kernel.
Uh, sorry. The recording industry (Vivendi Universal, in this case) BOUGHT mp3.com a long time ago and has steadily making it more and more unpalatable for artists since.
I hope they're wholesale replacing huge swaths of code
Yes, actually. Mozilla just merged a huge pile of changes, and since Phoenix is in the same tree the code more or less changed under them. It'll be a little bit before they're caught up again.
I don't recall reading in history class of the polar ice caps melting because native americans were ignorant of the mass devestation their smoke signals and controlled burning were causing.
I suspect those activities back then weren't large-scale enough to have significant (global) climactic effects, but for the sake of discussion, I should note that the world climate has warmed considerably in the last 100,000 years...
Forest fires have been naturally occuring since long before man started burning them too, although man now burns them at a far accelerated rate due to his industrial "needs".
Most forest burning is the result of non-sustainable agricultural techiniques, not industry. (not that industry doesn't have its own issues)
Don't sit there and tell me that ancient peoples are responsible for even 1% of the desestation we see today.
Globally? No. People just weren't that widespread/dense. Locally, where they were concentrated, yes. Early peoples did some really damaging stuff. e.g. much of the Middle Eastern deforestation and desertification dates back far before the present day.
Even prior to modern times, partly due to lack of modern sanitation, large population centers could easily render rivers and ground water completely non-potable (as in: think twice about swimming). One of the reasons fermented drinks were so popular (and still are in some less-developed regions).
It is a completely modern trend...
It really isn't.
...and it is our responsibility to deal with it.
I think we agree on that part. I think we also agree that now we have more ability than ever to make positive changes. I just think that the ideal of humans (or any form of life) having no impact whatsoever on their environment is very unrealistic.
How do you think we survived in the ages long ago when people lived off agriculture and a simpler social infrastructure?
Same way we do now. Even simple agricultural societies have relatively huge environmental impacts. Controlled burning by Native Americans was instrumental in creating the Great Plains from prehistoric woodlands.
Even in pre-agricultural societies we did things like single-handedly driving a number of large mammals to extinction (e.g. the wooly mammoth... also check out Polynesia for more recent examples of similar impact by pre-agricultral peoples).
"Primitive" socieities weren't really that "earth-friendly" either.
Now, that is not to say we couldn't do things far smarter than we do now. But "noble savage" ideals don't really help anything.
Assuming we don't completely obliterate the thing, what ethical/conservation issues are there about mining the moon, except that it'd probably look like ass if strip mined?
the only way to *prevent war* on a planet with limited resources and swelling population is to redistribute wealth.
I don't think that'd work either -- I'd argue that poverty is a symptom rather than a cause.
People can be as happy and well-fed as you please, and still want to kill each other -- not to mention the presence of several thousand years of legacy interethnic hatred.
gcc IS licensed under the GPL; programs compiled with it are not derivative works of the gcc code at all, except for small bits of inlined code -- and there is a specific excemption in the gcc license to allow that (as with most compilers; that's not a GPL-specific issue).
Presumably a GPL-ed Java environment would do the same. The GPL really isn't as horrible as some people make it out to be.
But, yeah, ECMA-Java would be a very, very very good thing.
Actually, I discovered recently that the "snowboarding" thing isn't necessarily as "anachronistic" as we might have thought.
As a friend pointed out, Petrarch wrote about germanic tribes surfing/sledding on their shields (naked!) down snowy embankments into battle -- that was 2000 years ago. So shield-surfing is a pretty old idea.
If you're going to be ultrapedantic, at least realize that they DO aspirate amniotic fluid. Otherwise the diaphragm and related musculature wouldn't develop properly for when the kid DID have to breathe air.
Your finger is unique and physically secure (hopefully true)
There's no "your finger" equivalent that someone could use (patently false and hopelessly naive)
The problems with such a system:
It's easy to falsify. It's actually almost trivially easy to fool a fingerprint reader and fake someone else's fingerprint. (note that the type of gelatin Matsumoto used is seaweed based -- a little stiffer and a bit different than what we use in the states, but I'm sure you can find it here in an asian grocery store or similar)
It's not verifiable. There is no challenge-response method possible with your finger to verify that it's even your finger, unless you want to add an embedded subcutaneous microchip, as in a smart card (but then why a fingerprint at all?). Worse, no such system actually checks your fingerprint; it computes a numeric hash of some sort from key features. Any hackery that can get you into the system behind the fingerprint reader means you just use the numeric hash (VERY easy to copy!) instead of a fingerprint. Consequently, it's no more secure than a credit card number in this respect.
It's not unique. Two words: hash collisions. Not such a big deal for authentication, but a real problem for identification.
It's not revokable. Given the above, if someone steals either your fingerprint or its hash, it's not like you can just get a new one, like you can a credit card number. You'd better hope the system at least allows you to switch to a new finger (and hope you don't run out of fingers). In the worst case, then, it's actually LESS secure than a credit card.
Then are all bands in violation when they play covers and requests at the corner pub?
Ordinarily the pub would already be paying fees to BMI and several similar organizations to cover that. Basically BMI and friends go around to any place that has/might perform/play music publically in some fashion and demands money (this includes having a TV in the room with working sound).
Doesn't matter if you only play non-BMI-represented artists (as far as they're concerned, it's impossible to play music without playing something by someone they represent _sometime_).
But yes, so pubs and such are nominally covered. The aforementioned MP3 cover collection wouldn't be.
And how can I get a copyright for any ringing melodies that are not already copyrighted? I wonder if G#G#G#G#G#G#G#G#G#G#G#G#G# is free.
Same way you would for a song otherwise. For copyright purposes, the lowest threshold for uniqueness is four notes[1], but you might want to copyright something just a bit longer for a saftey margin (since you probably don't have high-powered industry lawyers to back it up).
---
[1] Yes, I realize at this rate we'll run out of non-copyrighted melodies in a decade or two... but I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. In reality it's not quite so bad because that standard isn't consistently enforced.
I would say it would be analogous to my band making a cover of a top forty song, then allowing people to download my cover mp3 for free... is that illeagal too?
Slashdot Mirror
"The syntax of the command is incorrect"
c.f. what I said about the historical use of '/' as an option separator. cmd.exe and most of the commands that ship with it interpret arguments with leading slashes as switches.
Try using forward slashes in a relative path -- you will need to put the whole argument in double quotes, but it will work.
For example (from c:\) : cd "winnt/system32"
They had to do it this way for cmd.exe to be backwards-compatable with command.com. Not supporting it in the standard file dialog is a little less defensible.
It's not an intrinsic limitation of modern Windows versions in any case. You can use forward slashes in PATH, for example. Any Windows application that doesn't explicitly reject forward slashes will also let you use them (e.g. as commandline arguments).
See also my reply to the other poster.
Try writing e.g. a C program. You can use forward and backslashes interchangably when calling the relevent Win32 APIs.
Unless the code calling the APIs deliberately chooses to reject forwardslashes (e.g. cmd.exe or the standard file dialog), you can use them pretty much anywhere.
Try using forward slashes in the PATH environment variable, for example.
Backslashes were used as directory separators in DOS because nested directories were not introduced until several revisions in, and by that time forward slashes had been widely adopted as option indicators.
However, all modern Win32 platforms support forward slashes as directory separators. There are only a few places left (e.g. the standard file dialog) where you still have to use backslashes.
NTFS also supports case-sensitive filenames, though it's not turned on by default for compatibility reasons.
No, that would be North Korea.
Actually, modern glibc uses mmap() instead of sbrk() to allocate memory in many cases. mmap()ed segments get returned to the system at munmap() time.
The amount of kinetic energy transferred is surprisingly small. Bullets don't kill people, simple transfer of kinetic energy normally doesn't kill people.
It's the hole that kills people.
No, it's about texturing bitmapped images onto OpenGL quads to get "free" transformations and compositing, for the most part.
Trust me, Mac OS X icons are bitmapped.
Well, I do. 'course 2.4 is more of a Marcello kernel than a Linus kernel.
What, you're a Perl hacker and you've never seen Lingua::Romana::Perligata ?
Uh, sorry. The recording industry (Vivendi Universal, in this case) BOUGHT mp3.com a long time ago and has steadily making it more and more unpalatable for artists since.
Yes, actually. Mozilla just merged a huge pile of changes, and since Phoenix is in the same tree the code more or less changed under them. It'll be a little bit before they're caught up again.
I suspect those activities back then weren't large-scale enough to have significant (global) climactic effects, but for the sake of discussion, I should note that the world climate has warmed considerably in the last 100,000 years...
Most forest burning is the result of non-sustainable agricultural techiniques, not industry. (not that industry doesn't have its own issues)
Globally? No. People just weren't that widespread/dense. Locally, where they were concentrated, yes. Early peoples did some really damaging stuff. e.g. much of the Middle Eastern deforestation and desertification dates back far before the present day.
Even prior to modern times, partly due to lack of modern sanitation, large population centers could easily render rivers and ground water completely non-potable (as in: think twice about swimming). One of the reasons fermented drinks were so popular (and still are in some less-developed regions).
It really isn't.
I think we agree on that part. I think we also agree that now we have more ability than ever to make positive changes. I just think that the ideal of humans (or any form of life) having no impact whatsoever on their environment is very unrealistic.
Same way we do now. Even simple agricultural societies have relatively huge environmental impacts. Controlled burning by Native Americans was instrumental in creating the Great Plains from prehistoric woodlands.
Even in pre-agricultural societies we did things like single-handedly driving a number of large mammals to extinction (e.g. the wooly mammoth ... also check out Polynesia for more recent examples of similar impact by pre-agricultral peoples).
"Primitive" socieities weren't really that "earth-friendly" either.
Now, that is not to say we couldn't do things far smarter than we do now. But "noble savage" ideals don't really help anything.
Yes, because the alternative is death.
Assuming we don't completely obliterate the thing, what ethical/conservation issues are there about mining the moon, except that it'd probably look like ass if strip mined?
I don't think that'd work either -- I'd argue that poverty is a symptom rather than a cause.
People can be as happy and well-fed as you please, and still want to kill each other -- not to mention the presence of several thousand years of legacy interethnic hatred.
gcc IS licensed under the GPL; programs compiled with it are not derivative works of the gcc code at all, except for small bits of inlined code -- and there is a specific excemption in the gcc license to allow that (as with most compilers; that's not a GPL-specific issue).
Presumably a GPL-ed Java environment would do the same. The GPL really isn't as horrible as some people make it out to be.
But, yeah, ECMA-Java would be a very, very very good thing.
Actually, I discovered recently that the "snowboarding" thing isn't necessarily as "anachronistic" as we might have thought.
As a friend pointed out, Petrarch wrote about germanic tribes surfing/sledding on their shields (naked!) down snowy embankments into battle -- that was 2000 years ago. So shield-surfing is a pretty old idea.
...but that's precisely what your readers want! Google does a better job of doing what the user wants than you ever could.
No web site is irreplacable.
If you're going to be ultrapedantic, at least realize that they DO aspirate amniotic fluid. Otherwise the diaphragm and related musculature wouldn't develop properly for when the kid DID have to breathe air.
Assuming it were possible ... for the moment, since it's not really biologically possible for a lot of reasons...
You'd also need to feed the dividing meat cells with something. Not to mention the unfortunate consequences if the growth outpaced digestion.
Remember the nursery rhyme? ~"There was an old lady who swallowed a fly..."~
Yes! Cannot be overemphasized.
Such a system relies on two major assumptions:
The problems with such a system:
Ordinarily the pub would already be paying fees to BMI and several similar organizations to cover that. Basically BMI and friends go around to any place that has/might perform/play music publically in some fashion and demands money (this includes having a TV in the room with working sound).
Doesn't matter if you only play non-BMI-represented artists (as far as they're concerned, it's impossible to play music without playing something by someone they represent _sometime_).
But yes, so pubs and such are nominally covered. The aforementioned MP3 cover collection wouldn't be.
Same way you would for a song otherwise. For copyright purposes, the lowest threshold for uniqueness is four notes[1], but you might want to copyright something just a bit longer for a saftey margin (since you probably don't have high-powered industry lawyers to back it up).
---
[1] Yes, I realize at this rate we'll run out of non-copyrighted melodies in a decade or two... but I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. In reality it's not quite so bad because that standard isn't consistently enforced.
Yes.