It's in the PowerVR drivers for Kyro-based graphics boards, available at www.powervr.com. Closed source; the distributed tarball just links in the precompiled shared lib's, like nvidia drivers.
But how is that energy being "put into" the said system?
(I'm no physicist, and will freely admit to having a less-than-perfect understanding of all this, so I question as much to learn as anything.)
I guess what I'm getting at is that, for life to have started simply and become complex, something would have had to "put energy into" life. But how can nature put energy into life when life is already, perhaps, of a higher energy state than is the rest of nature?
Close- Illinois. I didn't mean to be "blaming" anyone for anything...I suppose my wording is such, though...Anyway, what I meant by "violation" is that life started relatively simple and became incredibly complex. This is prob. an idea that someone has fit into existing theories adequately, though?
Assuming someone else on this list was, like me, silly enough to buy a PowerVR Kyro-based graphics accelerator, here's a fix for a compile bug that I got w/ kernel 2.4.19 and gcc 3.1:
An interesting "violation" of the 2nd law of thermodynamics....since the only other natural phenomenon to have done this, afaik, is life itself, one can only assume that this is an effect of life on Earth, barring some other wierd cause.
This comment holds weight if and only if people *must* have sex. *Must* they? No, sex is never a necessity for individual survival.
Rest assured that the same Church that teaches the African people the moral dangers of using condoms also teaches them about the morTal danger, to themselves and to the rest of their community, of having sex outside of wedlock. The people who willingly violate the teachings of the Church are not "poor people" who don't know any better; they know why their people are dying, and they know how they can stop it, the same way it is in the US.
Want hard data to back up the Church's teaching on sex? Try http://marriage.rutgers.edu
Catholic leaders tried to stop such people, esp. Galileo, from teaching their theories as accepted truth because they hadn't proven them well. At all. The academia *hated* Galileo because, in addition to not justifying most of his claims, he went out and proclaimed his own theories as truth anyway. In this way, the Church leaders were actually the better scientists.
Repetitive music like, oh, I don't know....drum parts in almost every piece of popular music out there, holding musical dominion over the flow of the music, keeping it locked into a constant tempo so that it always does the same thing, predictably?
How about the repetitive form of popular music? Diagram of a typical popular song:
intro verse 1 refrain 1 verse 2 refrain 2 solo / bridge refrain 3 outro
Look familiar to you? Look in your CD collection and identify for me how many songs significantly break this pattern.
Of course, this doesn't mean that popular music is BAD; it's just that it is what it is because of all the repetition.
An argument that people are again raising is this idea of piracy "being a non-issue" because those who watch only pirated movies (or listen only to pirated CD's) wouldn't buy the retail versions. This argument, however, is flawed because there's no way to ensure that these people's "spirts wouldn't break" in a world without piracy. We can't really assume anything about such a situation because it doesn't exist and never has.
For example, let's say John buys only pirated movies. He says that he wouldn't buy them if there weren't pirated versions available. That's easy for him to say because, frankly, there's no threat to the availability of pirated movies. Faced, however, with the choice of paying retail or not watching movies at ALL, EVER, would he really hold up, or "give in" and be an honest, legal consumer.
Another argument has been made regarding the similarity in price between a movie and its soundtrack recording. "Well, *obviously* that means the entertainment industry is cheating consumers!" Or does it? Look at what has to go into *both* products, that requires similar production costs:
-media preparation, by *good* artists and designers
-distribution costs of similarly sized and weighted products
-securing copyrights on the recordings
-...and a slew of other things that I'm probably forgetting
Also, something driving down the prices of DVD's is the boom in DVD sales. The DVD is probably going to sell a *lot* more copies than is the soundtrack recording. (Let's face it- most soundtrack recordings are lame anyway.) This means that the individual DVD's can be sold for less money than the CD's and base costs of production like graphic design are easily recoup'ed by DVD sales. In addition, consider this: would any more or fewer people buy the soundtrack recording if it were $10? Perhaps, but I think the entertainment industry knows that the people who buy a movie's soundtrack are going to buy it even if it is a little over-priced.
Yes, the entertainment industry is a twisted place, but what else do we expect from a group of people that provides such a basic part of life as entertainment? Movies and music recordings (notice, I say *recordings*) are, for better or for worse, a cornerstone of the American economy and the American way of life. The entertainment industry knows that people *are* going to buy music recordings and movies, so why not charge more for them? The legal, just, and RIGHT way to protest these organizations, if we disagree with their pricing, is simply NOT TO BUY THEIR PRODUCTS. (At this point, too, I'll remind any Christians out there of the bit in Matthew about the "other cheek".)
The entertainment industry isn't like food or clothing or real estate in that people don't *need* music recordings or movies. NOR ARE WE ENTITLED TO THEM if their pricing practices are illicit. We ARE entitled to the ability to drive them out of business by simply not buying their products.
What this all boils down to is honesty. If we assume, and I think it's a reasonably fair assumption, that the entertainment industry is employing questionable business practices, then it follows that they are lying, as a result of greed. To whom are they lying, probably lots of people, but that's what it all boils down to. John in my previous exaple, though, is NO BETTER THAN ANY CROOKED EXECUTIVE, because he is lying, too, again because of greed. An industry with lying and greed on both sides of the equation isn't "balanced"; it's screwing over everyone involved.
I think it was Gandhi who said, "you must be the change you want to see in the world." If you want the entertainment industry to be fair in pricing etc., it follows that you should be fair consumers, and be honest.
Considering that OOo is already used by more people on Free OS'es than KOffice, that it runs on Windows, that OOo's feature set dwarfs KOffice's, and that OOo's M$ filters are considerably better than KOffice's, I'd say KOffice ought just to give up the good fight. I believe I remember reading that the number of KOffice developers was like under 10?? If they want a small, light office suite, then work on optimizing OOo, or make a Galeon-like project that uses OOo. It does open source development no good to have different projects that do basically the same thing, because the motivation of writing open source software isn't to best the "other guy", but just to write good software.
These machines have big disclaimers on them on walmart.com, and they presumably would have something similar in stores (or else those stores will get *lots* of returns).
The presence of a major alternative to Windows on the market will raise the awareness of all the Aunt Tilley's out there of which kind of OS they run. Just as in the "good ol' days" when every computer user knew that they had an Apple//e instead of an Amiga, the increased presence of Linux (and OSX?) on the market will help Aunt Tilley to know what she's running, just as she knows that she drives a Taurus and not a Corolla. I mean yeesh, how many users can't read the big letters that say "Windows" on system startup?? Yes, they're out there, but partially only because of the dominance of Windows, and they are indeed quite few who don't even know that they have Windows.
I really think that enough users out there only need the tools provided by KDE or Gnome, OpenOffice, Mozilla, XMMS, and maybe a few others to get what they need out of a computer.
Fix for OOo 1.0 font problem in Linux
on
StarOffice 6.0
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I've read a couple post'ers comment on font issues in Linux. Here's how to solve the one I had, sacrificing a bit of startup time; I assume this will fix similar behavior in other Linux installs of OOo 1.0:
----- Find user/psprint/pspfontcache from whatever directory your soffice binary is in
either delete this file or rename it
make a new, empty "pspfontcache" file and make it READ-ONLY ("touch pspfontcache && chmod 444 pspfontcache") -----
The issue has something to do w/ font caching; I got this fix from OOo's IssueZilla.
There, OOo is now that much more useful for Linux users.:-)
For the record, I'd look into SO 6.0 if it had a *usable* database component (I hate to admit it, but, like M$ Access).
Slashdot Mirror
Caio Chassot has created a godsend of a Javascript library for abstracting event handling and all sorts of other goodness:
http://v2studio.com/k/code/lib/
They ripped the "Why buy a blackbox" thing from openssl.org....
This despite that 4.8 is available on ftp.freebsd.org??
/ 4. 8-RELEASE
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386
One really annoying fault of Linux/XF86 that they may want to look into beforehand, since they have multilingual capabilities as a concern, is the inability to conveniently enter any character from any keyboard mapping. For example, I can type "é" in Windows by typing ALT-130. X can do this w/ sticky-keys, but that's annoying and only found on some keyboard mappings. What happens when one needs to type in "©"? ""? Character Map is one of Windows' greatest strengths as far as multilingual support, and it's really silly, IMHO, that XF86 doesn't include a utility for this. Even the desktop environments, though, which do have character maps (made by 3rd parties), don't make this simple-but-effective feature happen. Anyone who thinks this is a minor feature probably doesn't know the joy of typing a single recital program that uses Italian, German, French, and Spanish....
It's in the PowerVR drivers for Kyro-based graphics boards, available at www.powervr.com. Closed source; the distributed tarball just links in the precompiled shared lib's, like nvidia drivers.
But how is that energy being "put into" the said system?
(I'm no physicist, and will freely admit to having a less-than-perfect understanding of all this, so I question as much to learn as anything.)
I guess what I'm getting at is that, for life to have started simply and become complex, something would have had to "put energy into" life. But how can nature put energy into life when life is already, perhaps, of a higher energy state than is the rest of nature?
Close- Illinois. I didn't mean to be "blaming" anyone for anything...I suppose my wording is such, though...Anyway, what I meant by "violation" is that life started relatively simple and became incredibly complex. This is prob. an idea that someone has fit into existing theories adequately, though?
Assuming someone else on this list was, like me, silly enough to buy a PowerVR Kyro-based graphics accelerator, here's a fix for a compile bug that I got w/ kernel 2.4.19 and gcc 3.1:
drm/pvr_drm_vm.h, line 138, change to:
physical = (unsigned long)page_address(pte_page( pte ));
An interesting "violation" of the 2nd law of thermodynamics....since the only other natural phenomenon to have done this, afaik, is life itself, one can only assume that this is an effect of life on Earth, barring some other wierd cause.
hehe....as he fumes about GNU being mentioned in a Linux article only because of Galeon. :-)
http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/17/0717tentech.html
This comment holds weight if and only if people *must* have sex. *Must* they? No, sex is never a necessity for individual survival.
Rest assured that the same Church that teaches the African people the moral dangers of using condoms also teaches them about the morTal danger, to themselves and to the rest of their community, of having sex outside of wedlock. The people who willingly violate the teachings of the Church are not "poor people" who don't know any better; they know why their people are dying, and they know how they can stop it, the same way it is in the US.
Want hard data to back up the Church's teaching on sex? Try http://marriage.rutgers.edu
Catholic leaders tried to stop such people, esp. Galileo, from teaching their theories as accepted truth because they hadn't proven them well. At all. The academia *hated* Galileo because, in addition to not justifying most of his claims, he went out and proclaimed his own theories as truth anyway. In this way, the Church leaders were actually the better scientists.
Repetitive music like, oh, I don't know....drum parts in almost every piece of popular music out there, holding musical dominion over the flow of the music, keeping it locked into a constant tempo so that it always does the same thing, predictably?
How about the repetitive form of popular music? Diagram of a typical popular song:
intro
verse 1
refrain 1
verse 2
refrain 2
solo / bridge
refrain 3
outro
Look familiar to you? Look in your CD collection and identify for me how many songs significantly break this pattern.
Of course, this doesn't mean that popular music is BAD; it's just that it is what it is because of all the repetition.
An argument that people are again raising is this idea of piracy "being a non-issue" because those who watch only pirated movies (or listen only to pirated CD's) wouldn't buy the retail versions. This argument, however, is flawed because there's no way to ensure that these people's "spirts wouldn't break" in a world without piracy. We can't really assume anything about such a situation because it doesn't exist and never has.
For example, let's say John buys only pirated movies. He says that he wouldn't buy them if there weren't pirated versions available. That's easy for him to say because, frankly, there's no threat to the availability of pirated movies. Faced, however, with the choice of paying retail or not watching movies at ALL, EVER, would he really hold up, or "give in" and be an honest, legal consumer.
Another argument has been made regarding the similarity in price between a movie and its soundtrack recording. "Well, *obviously* that means the entertainment industry is cheating consumers!" Or does it? Look at what has to go into *both* products, that requires similar production costs:
-media preparation, by *good* artists and designers
-distribution costs of similarly sized and weighted products
-securing copyrights on the recordings
-...and a slew of other things that I'm probably forgetting
Also, something driving down the prices of DVD's is the boom in DVD sales. The DVD is probably going to sell a *lot* more copies than is the soundtrack recording. (Let's face it- most soundtrack recordings are lame anyway.) This means that the individual DVD's can be sold for less money than the CD's and base costs of production like graphic design are easily recoup'ed by DVD sales. In addition, consider this: would any more or fewer people buy the soundtrack recording if it were $10? Perhaps, but I think the entertainment industry knows that the people who buy a movie's soundtrack are going to buy it even if it is a little over-priced.
Yes, the entertainment industry is a twisted place, but what else do we expect from a group of people that provides such a basic part of life as entertainment? Movies and music recordings (notice, I say *recordings*) are, for better or for worse, a cornerstone of the American economy and the American way of life. The entertainment industry knows that people *are* going to buy music recordings and movies, so why not charge more for them? The legal, just, and RIGHT way to protest these organizations, if we disagree with their pricing, is simply NOT TO BUY THEIR PRODUCTS. (At this point, too, I'll remind any Christians out there of the bit in Matthew about the "other cheek".)
The entertainment industry isn't like food or clothing or real estate in that people don't *need* music recordings or movies. NOR ARE WE ENTITLED TO THEM if their pricing practices are illicit. We ARE entitled to the ability to drive them out of business by simply not buying their products.
What this all boils down to is honesty. If we assume, and I think it's a reasonably fair assumption, that the entertainment industry is employing questionable business practices, then it follows that they are lying, as a result of greed. To whom are they lying, probably lots of people, but that's what it all boils down to. John in my previous exaple, though, is NO BETTER THAN ANY CROOKED EXECUTIVE, because he is lying, too, again because of greed. An industry with lying and greed on both sides of the equation isn't "balanced"; it's screwing over everyone involved.
I think it was Gandhi who said, "you must be the change you want to see in the world." If you want the entertainment industry to be fair in pricing etc., it follows that you should be fair consumers, and be honest.
So buy your stuff.
Wasn't the release supposed to be June 21? I thought they were saying all along that they'd be right on time....
http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/schedule/
Considering that OOo is already used by more people on Free OS'es than KOffice, that it runs on Windows, that OOo's feature set dwarfs KOffice's, and that OOo's M$ filters are considerably better than KOffice's, I'd say KOffice ought just to give up the good fight. I believe I remember reading that the number of KOffice developers was like under 10?? If they want a small, light office suite, then work on optimizing OOo, or make a Galeon-like project that uses OOo. It does open source development no good to have different projects that do basically the same thing, because the motivation of writing open source software isn't to best the "other guy", but just to write good software.
These machines have big disclaimers on them on walmart.com, and they presumably would have something similar in stores (or else those stores will get *lots* of returns).
//e instead of an Amiga, the increased presence of Linux (and OSX?) on the market will help Aunt Tilley to know what she's running, just as she knows that she drives a Taurus and not a Corolla. I mean yeesh, how many users can't read the big letters that say "Windows" on system startup?? Yes, they're out there, but partially only because of the dominance of Windows, and they are indeed quite few who don't even know that they have Windows.
The presence of a major alternative to Windows on the market will raise the awareness of all the Aunt Tilley's out there of which kind of OS they run. Just as in the "good ol' days" when every computer user knew that they had an Apple
I really think that enough users out there only need the tools provided by KDE or Gnome, OpenOffice, Mozilla, XMMS, and maybe a few others to get what they need out of a computer.
I've read a couple post'ers comment on font issues in Linux. Here's how to solve the one I had, sacrificing a bit of startup time; I assume this will fix similar behavior in other Linux installs of OOo 1.0:
:-)
-----
Find user/psprint/pspfontcache from whatever directory your soffice binary is in
either delete this file or rename it
make a new, empty "pspfontcache" file and make it READ-ONLY ("touch pspfontcache && chmod 444 pspfontcache")
-----
The issue has something to do w/ font caching; I got this fix from OOo's IssueZilla.
There, OOo is now that much more useful for Linux users.
For the record, I'd look into SO 6.0 if it had a *usable* database component (I hate to admit it, but, like M$ Access).