That's only because of the limited and artificial way in which 'monopoly' is defined'.
If apple computers were "PC-compatible" and could run all PC programs just as well as any Win7 box, then I'd say they can be judged in the same class. But that's not the case.
Apple's != PC's. Therefore, they should be judged as being in a separate container.
There are few or NO competitors to Apple in the OS-"x" (x={6,7,8...}) space.
There are no competitors to Apple in the "iphone-compatible" space. There are no other phones by other manufacturers, that can run iphone programs. When there ARE, then we would have 'competition'. But Apple is a monopoly in this space. As well as in the OS-x space.
I mean Sony could say that they are implementing an update in their DVD's CD's and Blue-ray drives to disable playing of 3rd-party (other) - content. Only official Sony content will play on their drives in the future. Why not? If the can do it for their PS3's, why not other products at their whim?
If you do it on your own time and and on your own equipment, AND it is not something that could be considered your principle line of work for the company, then you are clear by law (though they can still take you to court and make your life miserable).
BUT if any of the above are not true, they may have some partial or complete interest in your work.
IF you work developing game code and develop a game engine, then they might have claim to that, but if you develop database code or compilers, then more likely not.
Not all states have their head screwed on str8 in this regard.
In some states, contracts to prohibit re-employment in the same field (so you don't take company secrets to a competitor) after you leave for a year or more are legal, but not in California. California realizes that in our economy, you walk out one door and into another at the drop of a hat. That DOESN'T mean that taking of previous company secrets is ok -- just that it will be presumed that you will keep your prior employers secrets, secret.
Don't give me this we,... I've been using unix since the late 80's and linux since late 90's. I have every bit as much as right to say what I want as anyone.
I want a tool that ties it all together for convenience. I don't like to have to load 40 different packages with different levels of support all telling me different ways to install everything, and then having half of it not work, only to be told it's open source and to fix it myself. That's great when I have the time or energy or don't have some project I'm working on.
But it doesn't just WORK and that's the difference between Linux and Windows. Linux has the benefit that when it doesn't just 'work', you have the ability (if you have the time) to perhaps make it work, and you have the ability to tie things together that you might not be able to in Windows.
But things that work in windows outshine linux by far, because the people there take the time to polish them and tie them together, and because MS, controlling everything makes things fit together. You can't say that about linux. There is virtually nothing about linux (outside of the kernel) that just works.. the kernel works because it is held together by linux and a few people, but nothing outside the kernel has any guiding person or body so nothing works together and nothing ties together seamlessly. If it did, you could show me your X utility that seamlessly ties everything together that procexp does.
The utilities on the outside that show things have to constantly keep up with a shifting kernel interface that is often -- for good reason, in transition. But too little (maybe) thought is given on how to maintain a powerful-system interface in linux that provides the features that procexp provides in windows.
Don't try to coral me in with windows users. I've spent the majority of my professional and development life on unix and linux doing development. I spend my casual time on Windows, where the interface is far easier to use. Sometimes I like things that just work. Linux (outside of kernel) rarely has that (ok..EXCEPTIONS...there are multiple individual projects that DO Work -- and even distro's if you don't push their limits; I use them at home where I run a linux server 24/7 and often download source (tarballs, CVS, bazaar, Git, et al) to roll lastest versions to attempt new things or just get existing things ). But _a_ tool to provide a simple summary of your systems activity that allows point and click drill-down? Doesn't exist on linux.
And it's nothing about about the preferences of linux users. Speaking as a veteran and speaking for others who aren't who would love such tools.
I didn't say you couldn't tie 20-30 unix utils with bailing wire and duct tape together to give the same information with 1000% more hassle.
The point is simplicity and power. It's all tied together in procexp.
I cannot begin to list all of the features of this free, and easy to use tool that even my non-computer literate friends can use to suspend processes from the GUI. It lets you check stacks, symbols, see I/O, paging memory, of everything or zoom in on 1 process.
It sits in your tray and display up to 4 configurable icons for cpu/virtmem/physmem/io. open it it gives a top-like display with colors (configurable) assigned by process type (sys, threads, compressed, user, job, etc..). Shows per process IO (not something you can get in top), process permission bits (integrity level) culmlative and instantaneous stats...all configurable.
Each process w/properties you can set priority(nice), cpu-affin, start/stop, look at each processes env, look at process in-mem image or on disk, see each threads stack and traceback -- with full OS symbols. Performance graphs of each process'es io, mem usage and cpu usage -- network(tcp/ip) connections w/addr + port...
It has displays like xosview -- 'cept that you hover over any spike and it tells you process name and id. Xosview would be a good top-level start for the graphing function, but there's no tie-in to anything else.
It's NOT just a developer tool -- in fact it ISN't a developer tool -- it's a user tool. It doesn't have much in the way of devel tool tie in if anything. It's to let users explore and find out what's going on in their system.
And it's downloadable from microsoft (they bought sysinternals).
And it's free -- and it's been out for 5 years. Linux is so far behind in good OS instrumentation for users its not fair to say that it is behind -- it just doesn't have anything close.
Now if you want something more for developers (but still is useful for users) procmon, does full tracing of i/o, net, process-changing, and registry accesses to allow you to see how a program interacts with the system (all of the above are configurable with full filters).
But procexp -- more of a user tool and a devel -early-alert tool.
The main difference is that people actually understand the basic Unix model of users and groups and so they often manage to set their file permissions to something relatively sane. Practically noone uses the full power of ACL's on either system. --- What's more useful is using the *same* ACL's to control access on a samba server and windows clients.
Very fun! You should try it sometime.
Be sure to use a linux file system with native ACL and XATTR support so SMB can do proper translations between the ACL flavors. I control access by user and group. I don't know where you get that linux's finest granularity is the 'group'...it's the same as NT's -- user level.
That said, NT's access control does have finer level permission granularity.
NT is superior to linux in many ways. It's also closed source. Show me a tool like sysinternals.com's process explorer (avail on windows) on linux. Linux has nothing even close -- yet on windows 1 free tool shows you more about your system than any collections of GUI's can on linux. Linux just doesn't have and seems to not believe in 'instrumentation' -- it doesn't have close to the hooks needed to do everything ProcessExplorer does. It's sad (disappointing, not sad-pathetic).
Cuz the apple handsets look "cool", so even as a paperweight, they still are a status symbol?
do music artists have right to use guitar on ipod?
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 1
But what does it say about the state of programming practice writ large when so many developers believe that their 'rights' are trampled because they cannot write programs for a particular device in a particular language? Or that their 'freedom' as creators is squelched for the same reason?"
Um...how is this any different if Apple prohibited music artists using guitars if they created music to play on an ipod?
What does it say about the music industry that music artists might demand to use instruments of their own choosing...and if they can't, would they protest that their rights are "trampled"...
Who is this guy? Telling any one what tools the can use to develop content for a platform sounds like the height of arrogance and a feeling that they "own" the artists/developers.
Adobe has the mindset of a monopolist. In their markets they often are. There support is shoddy to non-existent and their innovation is down. A few years back to cement their position with their graphics tools as dominant (Photoshop et. al), they started requiring those wishing to develop plug-ins to adopt exclusive licensing with Adobe, where adobe could halt sales of their plug-in with any other competing product, if it was determined that it out-performed adobe's product. Most plugin developers don't bother with image editing products outside of photoshop now.
Their licensing mechanism sucks... they sold me a bill of good about functionality, regarding products in there Creative Suite 4 package. I bought 3 of them separately -- turns out that their tools that ties all of the together 'Bridge' only will enable suite color management if it detects a package license, it won't enable separately bought pieces to work together. It only took me 3 months to get them to admit it was a broken conditional in their license processing in "Bridge" -- they then proceeded to issue me a new license -- for another single copy of photoshop. When I said that wasn't acceptable -- it had to be for all the products I'd purchased (because that's what the documentation says will work), they said I'd have to talk to customer service and would move it back there (I'd gone from customer service to technical, and then back again, and then technical and now again to C.S). That was about a month ago and I haven't heard from them since. Unfortunately I've been too tied up with other more pressing issues than to worry about their broken licensing model.
But basically their support sucks -- they have some wiz bang products that do great things, but prey you don't need technical support.
Their technical support people are way in over their heads (at least the ones I dealth with).
That's fine for professors who are worth their tenured pay, but for those that get up and drone on and on and have the real learning/teaching done by book and TA's who explain what the professor was incapable of, it can be a problem. The longer they have been there and the more apathy they have, (not always hand in hand), the more they will want students to be forced to attend -- it makes them look like they are 'busy' with students attending their lectures, but if too many students get as good as grade, not attending lecture as those who attend, eventually it will be asked -- what's the purpose of the professor?
To forestall that -- require attendance, say it is state mandated for funding...maybe is, maybe isn't, but it will be if students are found to be doing just as well not attending. Best way to prevent that type of observation is to make all students attend and dock their grade if they don't. Then there'll be no problem with those who don't attend getting as good or better grades -- even if they ace the exams...
Plegh!
I agree with the others here -- students are adults and they should best be choosing how to spend their study/school time. If their grade are fine. Shouldn't be an issue.
Maybe attendance could be used to give a 5% bonus to any cumulative point total on midterms and exams. Then you could encourage students to attend who needed it, and those who really didn't could choose not to. Curve won't be adjusted by the 5% for attendance...
Just an idea that would make sense (which is why you are unlikely to see it in practice).
Still wouldn't rule out using RFID's to track the bonus points.
Re:It's not called "coding".
on
Zen Coding
·
· Score: 1
But you didn't define the term "source code", nor make clear that "encrypted text" includes any code that is decipherable by the computer, directly, but may not be immediately decipherable to humans. Perl is hardly unique in it's ability to obscure underlying algorithms. I've seen plenty of obscure C and C++ code, and lets not even begin with assembler...that's encrypted to 99% of humans, by its design.
Programming -- the art of taking concepts and translating them to discreet machine-implementable concepts that can later (or perhaps at the same time) "coded" into a computer-understood language.
So writing code may be coding or may be programming, depending on whether or not you are writing from concept or from flow-charts.
I've often experience restore point corruption on Win7.
What's more amusing is one I've seen twice -- a system restore failing and not being able to reverse the partial restore.
Then bunches of files are just 'gone'...mostly executables and little things like that that no one would miss or need...
Of course, no one was expecting more than Beta quality out of Win7, where they? I've only had to reinstalled 4 times, and feel fortunate so far. Win7 ain't your WinXP...WAY too much interpretive code -- slightest hiccup and the results are large compared to WinXP...alot more 'power', but the interface isn't at nearly the stability level of XP -- maybe never will be, MS seems focused on DRM working more than OS working, in order to fulfill guarantees to media producers. If those fail, MS will be hurt big-time in its desire to become the lynch-pin in your media playing experience.
If your OS fails, well you don't have anything important on there, do you?
Don't rely Windows backup either -- haven't had it work successfully yet to reliably perform a system reinstall after it ate itself -- because it doesn't keep revisions -- only keeps the latest, and usually anything severe enough to cause system corruption to the level that it eats itself, has been saved in your last backup.
Great that they removed named the 'named', full and incremental backup utils, 'ntbackup' from XP and before, and replaced it with a gutless "save last copy" version (can't let users store old versions...no telling what they might go back to).
Don't expect reliability on Win7, yet. It HAS gotten better -- MS is sending out patches and collects data on broken programs (if you let it), and every once in a while it will come back and tell me of a solution -- either a 3rd party patch for a program having been released, or (more rare) a patch of its own). Those they are probably rolling into a Service Pack update unless they are Critical or Important.
Just make sure delivery uses peer-to-peer, so number of customers delivered to never exceeds the free-licensed delivery amount...Then you could effectively have a million receivers in a system, but since they are all downloading from each other, the licensing fees would be negligible.
Come to think of it, hasn't Azareus(sp?) implemented some sort of video content distribution system into their client? Would be amusing if this type of licensing scheme is along the lines of what they are thinking about using this system to more 'optimally utilize'.
You then have to download the entire thing to find out if those blocks are part of IronMan2.avi are actually part of ironman2 movie or some dumb students project on feeding excessive iron to a man. ---- If you have the first part, the consecutive parts after that are automatically watchable -- immediately. And about 50% of the time you only have to download 50% of the torrent to get the 1st piece...
But even if you don't, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for a computer algorithm to be developed to 'synchronize' with an active stream in progress. Surely, the only place to sync with a video stream is not the beginning, -- how do you seek?
If you can synchronize with the video at any point, you can see the video from that point on.
you can prioritize those chunks after a synchronization point to watch a bit of the video from that point on...
I know you don't have to download an entire BT stream to watch any part of it -- it's a feature of BT, that it can be divided into files -- and you can specified which parts of the stream you want to prioritize or download at all -- you don't have to download the whole thing to get partials.
As many programmers will tell you, the DPI setting in Windows is a problematic farce.
Then many programmers are themselves farces. Any programmer who's kept up on *web* technology, would know that dpi is a non-physical, relativistic measurement that's been defined by the value of some "angle" -- which means it's physical height is different depending on the how far the display is from you. If you want to know the details, read the HTML specs on w3.org. It's been moving that way for a few years, _at least_, in preparation for HTML5.
The most important thing to understand is that it lies. It has absolutely nothing to do with the DPI of the display.
OH NO! You mean they followed the spec. Gosh you must hate that about Microsoft.
The reason they came up with this new definition -- again, because of those farcical programmers who insisted on programming in pixels. Even now, look how many websites still use "px" as a unit of measure and not points, or mm. or inches (units that were always resizable to (which were always resizable to be the same size on any screen if the old screen-DPI was set correctly). But programmers doing GUI's and web programmers doing pages couldn't let go of the pixel, so the craft bastards designing HTML5, redefined the pixel to ween the programmers of of device dependent sizing.
In the new system, the standard on every display will be 96 dpi (even if they physical device is 120 or 200). That way people who could never be retrained, will think they are programming down on the pixel level, while the new software puts them on a virtual screen that can be resized to the user's satisfaction.
If I am expected to make "DPI aware" programs (and I am, thanks Microsoft), then at least give me access to an actual god damn DPI.
No!! You can't handle the real DPI!!! (trying best Jack Nicholsen voice)
Programmers have proven that for the 15-20 or so years that size, independent of device, had been out there (X), and ignored in the DOS/Win world, even when programmatic interfaces were there to determine the screen DPI and adjust pixel positions. Programmers couldn't do it.
If you want a global scaling factor, you can have one of them in addition to the DPI setting.
Numbers, numbers, too many numbers. Studies say -- people won't use it. Very sad.
If you are going to go flamo on MS, you might want to get your facts straight. They are just following the spec, and the large number of programmers you speak of that don't know that are just an embarrassing, in how they don't keep up with current events. You either keep learning, or you are history.
About 25-33% (more if they can pull it off) of a programmers time should be spent in learning about other technologies -- new technologies -- even if they wouldn't be seen to be immediately useful. Cross pollination and general education will buy them alot more leverage later on. And, BTW, it's healthy not to spend all of that educational time on computer related topics. Cross disciplinarian education has historically given new insights into day-to-day engineering problems, allowing completely innovative solutions to be created. That's were the art of software engineering comes in.
(writing this on my 100.6 physical dpi, 30" monitor (@ 2560x1600)), with color kept constant with an external color measuring device (a Spyder 3)).
And yes -- fonts at hi resolution look MUCH nicer than at lower res. They too, can look like art.
From the Creator. The creator who creates love in peoples hearts. Why should the institutions and creations of man take precedence over the creators work? Same sex relationships are seen throughout nature. Yet in man, institutions that have turned their face away from God call this "sinful". It is those institutions that violate the sanctity of life and love in God's eyes.
It is a man-made "church" that proclaims right and wrong and claims to speak for God -- yet their words go against the habits of creatures on this earth -- it pretty obvious that they are "unnatural" -- a perversion of the natural order God established. Let each be attracted to who they will and be in alignment with God's blessings.
If it's politically correct to say it or not the fact remains that homosexuality differs from the norm and is, biologically speaking, of no use to furthering the human species.
It doesn't need to be furthered -- it needs to be nurtured. Men on the make ain't doing alot of nuturing any time I've seen. Once married, maybe, Male couples can nuture as well -- when love flourishes -- as it does among female couples. IT's not as easy for male couples but it's relatively easy for for female couples to reproduce -- and with science, with each others genes! But that's not really the point of love. It's about loving and giving to another, love without an agenda -- a type of love that heterosexual couples find it harder to experience.
It is an inherrently selfish pursuit that leaves the notion of service to your fellow man (make jokes about that if you like!) completely out of the picture.
Not having children and devoting your life to science and art is selfish? Not having children is selfish? How about men who have to spread their seed into an over populated world who disproportionally will be the ones to leave their partner to raise a child alone? Who's selfish here? Statistically, it's the men who walk. You can be sure that gay couples won't be so selfish as to use impregnation as a way of enslavement or blithely leave behind single parents or children on the street. Statistics and reality don't backup your claims of selfishness. Caring first for themselves and their partners is doing the earth alot more good than those who are polluting the world with more uncared for and uncherished children (not that all are, but a sizable percentage of your supposedly "not selfish" net parents will produce such a result).
Normalization of homosexuality is foolish as it is (mathematically speaking) not normal. Mathematically speaking, left handers are not normal. Should we pass laws to stop them from marrying? They might pass on left handed genes...
If you think about it -- if gays do marry, they will be less likely to reproduce than their het counterparts, and genetically, they won't contribute as much to the gene pool -- but if honored and accepted into society, they will help raise the standard of living for today. Since they have no children of their own -- many make great workers in child care -- or would if it wasn't for anti-gay propaganda. By any measure -- absolute or per-capital, more heterosexual males are abusers of children than any other group. NOT gay men. And lesbians? I've heard of a few freak incidents of a woman with lesbian inclinations going over the edge, but those I've who like to be around children are very caring and make ideal child care workers -- they don't have to go home to take care of their own.
Opening recognition for gay couples leaves the floodgates open for polygimous groups and other non-traditional spousal units to get their "rights" recognized.
And??
"It takes a village to raise a child" used to be common sense. Children were better off when groups of adults were around to interact with them. In today's society, having only 2 adults, both of whom are
Don't forget the quote of Christian Crusaders... "Kill them and all and let God sort them out"...
Christians do kill, they do bomb clinics, they do blow up buildings in Oklahoma -- just that most of them are not so included, but they organized well from all states in the US to overwhelm the electorate in the last California election to remove the rights of same sex people to marry.
Monotheism is inherently antithetical to human life, as human life needs freedom and monotheism says there's only one way -- and ultimate it's followers enforce their beliefs on others. Until people realize that one-wayism is a threat to everyone, it will remain an insidious problem.
Yup, and there's all those crap corn advertisements trying to make people believe corn sugar is just the same and just as safe as regular sugar.
What a load of crapaganda
Reminds me of all the FUD around Stevia -- not the commercial stuff, but the natural refined crystals from plant. 1 oz = ~ 12.5 lbs of sugar equivalent. Average usage....05gram.
Do youknow how long 1oz of that white powder lasts for sweetening unsweetened breakfast serial eat 2-3 times/day? OR occasionally sweetening of unsweetened koolaid type drinks in place of sugared ones? Nearly a year for 1 person -- easily!
Do you know how much this would save in money and calories for the average person?!?!
(And it has minor blood pressure lower effects).
Supposed effects on sperm are unnoticed in any human populations or tests.
Slashdot Mirror
That's only because of the limited and artificial way in which 'monopoly' is defined'.
If apple computers were "PC-compatible" and could run all PC programs just as well as any Win7 box, then I'd say they can be judged in the same class. But that's not the case.
Apple's != PC's. Therefore, they should be judged as being in a separate container.
There are few or NO competitors to Apple in the OS-"x" (x={6,7,8...}) space.
There are no competitors to Apple in the "iphone-compatible" space. There are no other phones by other manufacturers, that can run iphone programs. When there ARE, then we would have 'competition'. But Apple is a monopoly in this space. As well as in the OS-x space.
But of course, it would only be done to reduce piracy...
It would make sense.
I mean Sony could say that they are implementing an update in their DVD's CD's and Blue-ray drives to disable playing of 3rd-party (other) - content. Only official Sony content will play on their drives in the future. Why not? If the can do it for their PS3's, why not other products at their whim?
In germany -- probably -- but you might be in for worse. Is gun ownership a given in germany?
This varies from state to state.
In california it's a use of common sense.
If you do it on your own time and and on your own equipment, AND it is not something that could be considered your principle line of work for the company, then you are clear by law (though they can still take you to court and make your life miserable).
BUT if any of the above are not true, they may have some partial or complete interest in your work.
IF you work developing game code and develop a game engine, then they might have claim to that,
but if you develop database code or compilers, then more likely not.
Not all states have their head screwed on str8 in this regard.
In some states, contracts to prohibit re-employment in the same field (so you don't take company secrets to a competitor) after you leave for a year or more are legal, but not in California. California realizes that in our economy, you walk out one door and into another at the drop of a hat. That DOESN'T mean that taking of previous company secrets is ok -- just that it will be presumed that you will keep your prior employers secrets, secret.
In short...you'll have to check your state laws.
Don't give me this we, ... I've been using unix since the late 80's and linux since late 90's.
I have every bit as much as right to say what I want as anyone.
I want a tool that ties it all together for convenience. I don't like to have to load 40
different packages with different levels of support all telling me different ways to install
everything, and then having half of it not work, only to be told it's open source and to fix it
myself. That's great when I have the time or energy or don't have some project I'm working on.
But it doesn't just WORK and that's the difference between Linux and Windows. Linux has
the benefit that when it doesn't just 'work', you have the ability (if you have the time) to
perhaps make it work, and you have the ability to tie things together that you might not be
able to in Windows.
But things that work in windows outshine linux by far, because the people there take the .. the kernel works because it is held together by linux and a few people, but nothing outside the kernel has any guiding person or body so nothing works together and nothing ties together seamlessly. If it did, you could show me your X utility that seamlessly ties everything together that procexp does.
time to polish them and tie them together, and because MS, controlling everything makes
things fit together. You can't say that about linux. There is virtually nothing about linux (outside of the kernel) that just works
The utilities on the outside that show things have to constantly keep up with a shifting kernel interface that is often -- for good reason, in transition. But too little (maybe) thought is given on how to maintain a powerful-system interface in linux that provides the features that procexp provides in windows.
Don't try to coral me in with windows users. I've spent the majority of my professional and development life on unix and linux doing development. I spend my casual time on Windows, where the interface is far easier to use. Sometimes I like things that just work. Linux (outside of kernel) rarely has that (ok..EXCEPTIONS...there are multiple individual projects that DO Work -- and even distro's if you don't push their limits; I use them at home where I run a linux server 24/7 and often download source (tarballs, CVS, bazaar, Git, et al) to roll lastest versions to attempt new things or just get existing things ). But _a_ tool to provide a simple summary of your systems activity that allows point and click drill-down? Doesn't exist on linux.
And it's nothing about about the preferences of linux users. Speaking as a veteran and speaking
for others who aren't who would love such tools.
Procexp is 1 integrated GUI tool. All in one.
I didn't say you couldn't tie 20-30 unix utils with bailing wire and duct tape together to give the same information with 1000% more hassle.
The point is simplicity and power. It's all tied together in procexp.
I cannot begin to list all of the features of this free, and easy to use /O, paging memory, of
tool that even my non-computer literate friends can use to suspend processes
from the GUI. It lets you check stacks, symbols, see I
everything or zoom in on 1 process.
It sits in your tray and display up to 4 configurable icons for cpu/virtmem/physmem/io. open it it gives a top-like display with colors (configurable) assigned by process type (sys, threads, compressed, user, job, etc..).
Shows per process IO (not something you can get in top), process permission
bits (integrity level) culmlative and instantaneous stats...all configurable.
Each process w/properties you can set priority(nice), cpu-affin, start/stop,
look at each processes env, look at process in-mem image or on disk, see
each threads stack and traceback -- with full OS symbols. Performance
graphs of each process'es io, mem usage and cpu usage -- network(tcp/ip)
connections w/addr + port...
It has displays like xosview -- 'cept that you hover over any spike and it tells
you process name and id. Xosview would be a good top-level start for the graphing function, but there's no tie-in to anything else.
It's NOT just a developer tool -- in fact it ISN't a developer tool -- it's
a user tool. It doesn't have much in the way of devel tool tie in if anything.
It's to let users explore and find out what's going on in their system.
And it's downloadable from microsoft (they bought sysinternals).
And it's free -- and it's been out for 5 years.
Linux is so far behind in good OS instrumentation for users its not fair to say
that it is behind -- it just doesn't have anything close.
Now if you want something more for developers (but still is useful for users)
procmon, does full tracing of i/o, net, process-changing, and registry accesses to allow you to see how a program interacts with the system (all of the above are configurable with full filters).
But procexp -- more of a user tool and a devel -early-alert tool.
linux has nothing like it and it's unfortunate.
lsof isn't a GUI tool -- it has no interactive features.
It has a very small subset of procexp's functionality, but it is a _small_ subset.
The main difference is that people actually understand the basic Unix model of users and groups and so they often manage to set their file permissions to something relatively sane. Practically noone uses the full power of ACL's on either system.
---
What's more useful is using the *same* ACL's to control access on a samba server and windows clients.
Very fun! You should try it sometime.
Be sure to use a linux file system with native ACL and XATTR support so SMB can do proper translations between the ACL flavors. I control access by user and group. I don't know where you get that linux's finest granularity is the 'group'...it's the same as NT's -- user level.
That said, NT's access control does have finer level permission granularity.
NT is superior to linux in many ways. It's also closed source. Show me a tool like sysinternals.com's
process explorer (avail on windows) on linux. Linux has nothing even close -- yet on windows 1 free tool shows you more about your system than any collections of GUI's can on linux. Linux just doesn't have and seems to not believe in 'instrumentation' -- it doesn't have close to the hooks needed to do everything ProcessExplorer does. It's sad (disappointing, not sad-pathetic).
Cuz the apple handsets look "cool", so even as a paperweight, they still are a status symbol?
But what does it say about the state of programming practice writ large when so many developers believe that their 'rights' are trampled because they cannot write programs for a particular device in a particular language? Or that their 'freedom' as creators is squelched for the same reason?"
Um...how is this any different if Apple prohibited music artists using guitars if they created music to play on an ipod?
What does it say about the music industry that music artists might demand to use instruments of their own choosing...and if they can't, would they protest that their rights are "trampled"...
Who is this guy? Telling any one what tools the can use to develop content for a platform sounds like the height of arrogance and a feeling that they "own" the artists/developers.
-l
Adobe has the mindset of a monopolist. In their markets they often are. There support is shoddy to non-existent and their innovation is down. A few years back to cement their position with their graphics tools as dominant (Photoshop et. al), they started requiring those wishing to develop plug-ins to adopt exclusive licensing with Adobe, where adobe could halt sales of their plug-in with any other competing product, if it was determined that it out-performed adobe's product. Most plugin developers don't bother with image editing products outside of photoshop now.
Their licensing mechanism sucks... they sold me a bill of good about functionality, regarding products in there Creative Suite 4 package. I bought 3 of them separately -- turns out that their tools that ties all of the together 'Bridge' only will enable suite
color management if it detects a package license, it won't enable separately bought pieces to work together. It only took me 3 months to get them to admit it was a broken conditional in their license processing in "Bridge" -- they then proceeded to issue me a new license -- for another single copy of photoshop. When I said that wasn't acceptable -- it had to be for all the products I'd purchased (because that's what the documentation says will work), they said I'd have to talk to customer service and would move it back there (I'd gone from customer service to technical, and then back again, and then technical and now again to C.S). That was about a month ago and I haven't heard from them since. Unfortunately I've been too tied up with other more pressing issues than to worry about their broken licensing model.
But basically their support sucks -- they have some wiz bang products that do great things, but prey you don't need technical support.
Their technical support people are way in over their heads (at least the ones I dealth
with).
That's fine for professors who are worth their tenured pay, but for those that get up and drone on and on and have the real learning/teaching done by book and TA's who explain what the professor was incapable of, it can be a problem. The longer they have been there and the more apathy they have, (not always hand in hand), the more they will want students to be forced to attend -- it makes them look like they are 'busy' with students attending their lectures, but if too many students get as good as grade, not attending lecture as those who attend, eventually it will be asked -- what's the purpose of the professor?
To forestall that -- require attendance, say it is state mandated for funding...maybe is, maybe isn't, but it will be if students are found to be doing just as well not attending. Best way to prevent that type of observation is to make all students attend and dock their grade if they don't. Then there'll be no problem with those who don't attend getting as good or better grades -- even if they ace the exams...
Plegh!
I agree with the others here -- students are adults and they should best be choosing how to spend their study/school time. If their grade are fine. Shouldn't be an issue.
Maybe attendance could be used to give a 5% bonus to any cumulative point total on midterms and exams. Then you could encourage students to attend who needed it, and those who really didn't could choose not to. Curve won't be adjusted by the 5% for attendance...
Just an idea that would make sense (which is why you are unlikely to see it in practice).
Still wouldn't rule out using RFID's to track the bonus points.
But you didn't define the term "source code", nor make clear that "encrypted text" includes any code that is decipherable by the computer, directly, but may not be immediately decipherable to humans. Perl is hardly unique in it's ability to obscure underlying algorithms. I've seen plenty of obscure C and C++ code, and lets not even begin with assembler...that's encrypted to 99% of humans, by its design.
Programming -- the art of taking concepts and translating them to discreet machine-implementable concepts that can later (or perhaps at the same time) "coded" into a computer-understood language.
So writing code may be coding or may be programming, depending on whether or not you are writing from concept or from flow-charts.
I've often experience restore point corruption on Win7.
What's more amusing is one I've seen twice -- a system restore failing and not being able to reverse the partial restore.
Then bunches of files are just 'gone'...mostly executables and little things like that that no one would miss or need...
Of course, no one was expecting more than Beta quality out of Win7, where they? I've only had to reinstalled 4 times, and feel fortunate so far. Win7 ain't your WinXP...WAY too much interpretive code -- slightest hiccup and the results are large compared to WinXP...alot more 'power', but the interface isn't at nearly the stability level of XP -- maybe never will be, MS seems focused on DRM working more than OS working, in order to fulfill guarantees to media producers. If those fail, MS will be hurt big-time in its desire to become the lynch-pin in your media playing experience.
If your OS fails, well you don't have anything important on there, do you?
Don't rely Windows backup either -- haven't had it work successfully yet to reliably perform a system reinstall after it ate itself -- because it doesn't keep revisions -- only keeps the latest, and usually anything severe enough to cause system corruption to the level that it eats itself, has been saved in your last backup.
Great that they removed named the 'named', full and incremental backup utils, 'ntbackup' from XP and before, and replaced it with a gutless "save last copy" version (can't let users store old versions...no telling what they might go back to).
Don't expect reliability on Win7, yet. It HAS gotten better -- MS is sending out patches and collects data on broken programs (if you let it), and every once in a while it will come back and tell me of a solution -- either a 3rd party patch for a program having been released, or (more rare) a patch of its own). Those they are probably rolling into a Service Pack update unless they are Critical or Important.
Just my experience.
-l
Just make sure delivery uses peer-to-peer, so number of customers delivered to never exceeds the free-licensed
delivery amount...Then you could effectively have a million receivers in a system, but since they are all downloading from each other, the licensing fees would be negligible.
Come to think of it, hasn't Azareus(sp?) implemented some sort of video content distribution system into their client? Would be amusing if this type of licensing scheme is along the lines of what they are thinking about using this system to more 'optimally utilize'.
Just use a linux box as home router....should be able to handle sufficient clients to saturate most links.
They are on your private tracker?
you forgot the real part.
You then have to download the entire thing to find out if those blocks are part of IronMan2.avi are actually part of ironman2 movie or some dumb students project on feeding excessive iron to a man.
----
If you have the first part, the consecutive parts after that are automatically watchable -- immediately. And about 50% of the time you only have to download 50% of the torrent to get the 1st piece...
But even if you don't, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for a computer algorithm to be
developed to 'synchronize' with an active stream in progress. Surely, the only place to sync with a video stream is not the beginning, -- how do you seek?
If you can synchronize with the video at any point, you can see the video from that point on.
you can prioritize those chunks after a synchronization point to watch a bit of the video from that
point on...
I know you don't have to download an entire BT stream to watch any part of it -- it's a feature of
BT, that it can be divided into files -- and you can specified which parts of the stream you want to prioritize or download at all -- you don't have to download the whole thing to get partials.
I take it you've never actually used BT?
As many programmers will tell you, the DPI setting in Windows is a problematic farce.
Then many programmers are themselves farces. Any programmer who's kept up on *web* technology, would know that dpi is a non-physical, relativistic measurement that's been defined by the value of some "angle" -- which means it's physical height is different depending on the how far the display is from you. If you want to know the details, read the HTML specs on w3.org. It's been moving that way for a few years, _at least_, in preparation for HTML5.
The most important thing to understand is that it lies. It has absolutely nothing to do with the DPI of the display.
OH NO! You mean they followed the spec. Gosh you must hate that about Microsoft.
The reason they came up with this new definition -- again, because of those farcical programmers who insisted on programming in pixels. Even now, look how many websites still use "px" as a unit of measure and not points, or mm. or inches (units that were always resizable to (which were always resizable to be the same size on any screen if the old screen-DPI was set correctly). But programmers doing GUI's and web programmers doing pages couldn't let go of the pixel, so the craft bastards designing HTML5, redefined the pixel to ween the programmers of of device dependent sizing.
In the new system, the standard on every display will be 96 dpi (even if they physical device is 120 or 200). That way people who could never be retrained, will think they are programming down on the pixel level, while the new software puts them on a virtual screen that can be resized to the user's satisfaction.
If I am expected to make "DPI aware" programs (and I am, thanks Microsoft), then at least give me access to an actual god damn DPI.
No!! You can't handle the real DPI!!! (trying best Jack Nicholsen voice)
Programmers have proven that for the 15-20 or so years that size, independent of device, had been out there (X), and ignored in the DOS/Win world, even when programmatic interfaces were there to determine the screen DPI and adjust pixel positions. Programmers couldn't do it.
If you want a global scaling factor, you can have one of them in addition to the DPI setting.
Numbers, numbers, too many numbers. Studies say -- people won't use it. Very sad.
If you are going to go flamo on MS, you might want to get your facts straight. They are just following the spec, and the large number of programmers you speak of that don't know that are just an embarrassing, in how they don't keep up with current events. You either keep learning, or you are history.
About 25-33% (more if they can pull it off) of a programmers time should be spent in learning about other technologies -- new technologies -- even if they wouldn't be seen to be immediately useful. Cross pollination and general education will buy them alot more leverage later on.
And, BTW, it's healthy not to spend all of that educational time on computer related topics. Cross disciplinarian education has historically given new insights into day-to-day engineering problems, allowing completely innovative solutions to be created. That's were the art of software engineering comes in.
(writing this on my 100.6 physical dpi, 30" monitor (@ 2560x1600)), with color kept constant with an external color measuring device (a Spyder 3)).
And yes -- fonts at hi resolution look MUCH nicer than at lower res. They too, can look like art.
-l
-l
Where does this "right" come from?
From the Creator. The creator who creates love in peoples hearts. Why should the institutions and creations of man take precedence over the creators work? Same sex relationships are seen throughout nature. Yet in man, institutions that have turned their face away from God call this "sinful". It is those institutions that violate the sanctity of life and love in God's eyes.
It is a man-made "church" that proclaims right and wrong and claims to speak for God -- yet their words go against the habits of creatures on this earth -- it pretty obvious that they are "unnatural" -- a perversion of the natural order God established. Let each be attracted to who they will and be in alignment with God's blessings.
If it's politically correct to say it or not the fact remains that homosexuality differs from the norm and is, biologically speaking, of no use to furthering the human species.
It doesn't need to be furthered -- it needs to be nurtured. Men on the make ain't doing alot of nuturing any time I've seen. Once married, maybe, Male couples can nuture as well -- when love flourishes -- as it does among female couples. IT's not as easy for male couples but it's relatively easy for for female couples to reproduce -- and with science, with each others genes!
But that's not really the point of love. It's about loving and giving to another, love without an agenda -- a type of love that heterosexual couples find it harder to experience.
It is an inherrently selfish pursuit that leaves the notion of service to your fellow man (make jokes about that if you like!) completely out of the picture.
Not having children and devoting your life to science and art is selfish? Not having children is selfish? How about men who have to spread their seed into an over populated world who disproportionally will be the ones to leave their partner to raise a child alone? Who's selfish here? Statistically, it's the men who walk. You can be sure that gay couples won't be so selfish as to use impregnation as a way of enslavement or blithely leave behind single parents or children on the street.
Statistics and reality don't backup your claims of selfishness. Caring first for themselves and their partners is doing the earth alot more good than those who are polluting the world with more uncared for and uncherished children (not that all are, but a sizable percentage of your supposedly "not selfish" net parents will produce such a result).
Normalization of homosexuality is foolish as it is (mathematically speaking) not normal.
Mathematically speaking, left handers are not normal. Should we pass laws to stop them from marrying? They might pass on left handed genes...
If you think about it -- if gays do marry, they will be less likely to reproduce than their het counterparts, and genetically, they won't contribute as much to the gene pool -- but if honored and accepted into society, they will help raise the standard of living for today. Since they have no children of their own -- many make great workers in child care -- or would if it wasn't for anti-gay propaganda. By any measure -- absolute or per-capital, more heterosexual males are abusers of children than any other group. NOT gay men. And lesbians? I've heard of a few freak incidents of a woman with lesbian inclinations going over the edge, but those I've who like to be around children are very caring and make ideal child care workers -- they don't have to go home to take care of their own.
Opening recognition for gay couples leaves the floodgates open for polygimous groups and other non-traditional spousal units to get their "rights" recognized.
And??
"It takes a village to raise a child" used to be common sense. Children were better off when groups of adults were around to interact with them. In today's society, having only 2 adults, both of whom are
Don't forget the quote of Christian Crusaders ... "Kill them and all and let God sort them out"...
Christians do kill, they do bomb clinics, they do blow up buildings in Oklahoma -- just that most of them are not so included, but they organized well from all states in the US to overwhelm the electorate in the last California election to remove the rights of same sex people to marry.
Monotheism is inherently antithetical to human life, as human life needs freedom and monotheism says there's only one way -- and ultimate it's followers enforce their beliefs on others. Until people realize that one-wayism is a threat to everyone, it will remain an insidious problem.
I dunno... if I can agree, doesn't that go against some /. rule? :-)
Why would I put it in YOUR food!....I add my own.
I just wish I wouldn't be forced to eat CORN SYRUP, in my food....
Everyone should be able to choose their 'additives'...:-)
Yup, and there's all those crap corn advertisements trying to make people believe corn sugar is just the same and just as safe as regular sugar.
What a load of crapaganda
Reminds me of all the FUD around Stevia -- not the commercial stuff, but the natural refined crystals from plant. 1 oz = ~ 12.5 lbs of sugar equivalent. Average usage ... .05gram.
Do youknow how long 1oz of that white powder lasts for sweetening unsweetened breakfast serial eat 2-3 times/day? OR occasionally sweetening of unsweetened koolaid type drinks in place of sugared ones?
Nearly a year for 1 person -- easily!
Do you know how much this would save in money and calories for the average person?!?!
(And it has minor blood pressure lower effects).
Supposed effects on sperm are unnoticed in any human populations or tests.