That, frankly, is rubbish. Someone who doesn't know about the commands and what they do will have to learn their names anyway; it doesn't matter, for example, whether you have to remember "get-process" or "ps". In fact, it might be easier to remember "ps", as it is shorter and more concise.
As for the suggestion to alias commands so you don't have to type as much - wow, that's even more braindead. Part of the appeal of Unix is that the commands are pretty much the same everywhere - I can use grep to grep for things, for example, and expect it to work more or less the same on every platform. What you're advocating is the creation of an entirely individual set of commands, so administrators will either have to keep both sets of commands in mind (even more of a hassle), or be unable to (easily) understand each other because one abbreviated "get-process" as "gp", one used "ps" instead, and so on.
That just goes to show that "watch" does not automatically imply "wearable", and that "wearable" does not automatically mean "wearable in an easy and/or comfortable way".:)
The problem is not so much that being off one minute would cause problems - it's that being off one minute *each* day adds up quickly, so you'd regularly have to readjust your clock (every couple of days, at least). And while that certainly is doable, it's also a hassle; people want their watches (like other technology) to "just work" without the need for constant upkeep.
Which words would you use? I dislike buzzwords and empty marketing-speak just as much as anyone on Slashdot, but "developer" isn't one of those buzzwords, I think. Quite the opposite: it's an accurate description of the job done. The same goes for "development".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see the problem.
Abusing monopolies *is* not allowed, though. It's not that you can't be successful; it's just that if you are to a point where you are pretty much the only player left in the field, you're not allowed to use your market share to shut out others.
It's like Microsoft bundling IE with windows, for example - using an OS monopoly to create a browser monopoly. For a similar, less historic example, check what's behind the EU's requirement that M$ make a windows version without media player available. Contrary to what it might seem like, it's not just some bureaucrats running amok; rather, the fundamental idea is that by creating a more level playing field where no single player can bully everyone else, the customers will ultimately benefit. Which, incidentally, is the whole idea behind capitalism.
Odds are, eBay won't just let Google Wallet into their system and people would have to do payments manually [...]
In that case, I wouldn't be surprised if Google actually sued eBay for using a near-monopoly in one sector (online auctions) to help maintain one in another sector (online credit card payments). And personally, I think it wouldn't be without merit, either.
How about Poogle? It would probably lead to a lawsuit by Neopets, but it actually sounds nice enough (which, incidentally may be one of the reasons the word is used on Neopets).
If that doesn't work, it could always be varied a bit - Poodle comes to mind, for example. Or how about Bagel?:)
I *really* hope they go through with that. So far, PayPal has what is pretty much a monopoly on online payments; there's alternatives like Moneybookers, but few people even know about them, and PayPal has consistently and systematically abused its monopoly by imposing more and more unreasonable restrictions.
Two that annoy me the most, personally are the fact that you can't use it for "adult" transactions, and that it's quite limited with regard to how you can get your own money that sits in your own account in many countries outside of the USA. In fact, there is a list of countries where the only available option is transferring the money to a US-based bank account - which really is ridiculous when you think about it. It may not matter much to the average US citizen, of course, but think about it - what would you say if you found out that the online payment service you used to have people pay for the stuff you sold on eBay only allows you to transfer the money to a bank account in - say - Uruguay?
PayPal's policies are consistent with those of eBay, though (its mother company nowadays); like eBay, PayPal is entirely inconsiderate of its users, a stark contrast to Google's "do no evil" philosophy.
Let's hope that Google will revolutionize online payments the same way they revolutionized searching, and let's also hope that PayPal will soon be just as forgotten as Hotbot, Northernlight, Mamma and all the search engines we used before Google was there.
There is no release manager. A new kernel gets published when Linus decides it's time; in a way, that makes him the release manager, but it's not really managing as in "creating schedules, specifications, requirements, deadlines and all that". And I at least would rather see him do actual work instead of meeting arbitrary requirements imposed on him by the more marketing-oriented types.
That being said, Linus *has* given a reason why there's no full changelog this *one* time (it's reproduced right above in this very Slashdot discussion, for example); if anyone has issues with that, I assume they're more than welcome to create a full one and post that. If noone does... well, then the itch probably wasn't worth scratching after all.
So there. If it really matters to you, then go and create a full changelog. If it's not worth your time and effort, why do you complain that Linus feels the same way?
Actually... the regular 2.6 kernels are pretty stable, or at least not more unstable than past stable kernel series like 2.4 were. This is especially true if you run the 2.6.x.y kernels (like 2.6.11.12, currently) instead of staying on the bleeding (mainline) edge by constantly upgrading to the latest -rc or even git snapshots.
I for one think that it's all a good idea: instead of backporting features (from devel to stable, or stable to old stable), we're simply back-porting bugfixes applied to mainline to a relatively short-lived stable off-shot so that people can get fixes without new features that also introduce new bugs. That should help stability.
Outside of that... well, yeah, I guess one could complain about the lack of proper regression testing, QA prior to releases, release schedules and all that. But the truth is that these things have not only hindered but actually *helped* a great deal when it comes to Linux development, so I don't see why they should be abolished. In the end, it's the developers that decide how things should work - and that's good, because it's the developers, not management (this includes everyone who's not involved with development), who know best.
That being said, the statement that distros don't roll their own kernels isn't true, anyway. Take Fedora, for example - if you read Dave Jones' blog, you'll notice that a lot of effort *is* going into stabilizing these and making them regression-free. How many distros do you know that ship with vanilla kernels? I know exactly one - Slackware. Every other (big) one uses patched kernels, no matter whether it's Debian, SuSE, RedHat, or whatever else there is.
And no, having it ask me every time a site wants to set a cookie is not the solution.
How about being asked once for any given site and then having that answer stored as the default? It seems to me that that's essentially what you want: white- and blacklisting, and you're asked automatically which list a site should be added to when you encounter it for the first time (if it wants to set cookies at all, that is, but if it doesn't, then all's well anyway).
That's not a reason to disallow photographing by others altogether, though. Rather, it's a reason to talk to whoever is responsible for the administrative issues surrounding the organization of the event and ask them to ask the interferer to, well, stop interfering with your work, pointing out that *you* are the one who's the official and paid photographer.
In other words, you certainly can expect people to play along nicely, but I don't see why you'd expect to be the only player in the field.
There often is a difference between what's legal and what's right in a moral sense - in other words, the "right" in "a right" is not the same as in "morally right".
China may have the legal right to do whatever it wants with its citizens, no matter what that is, but it doesn't mean that it's morally OK for them to do it. Furthermore, China *did* sign and ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - in fact, there even was a Chinese professor (Zhang Pengjun) on the commission that drafted the declaration.
That being said - as has been reported, there *is* not even a law in China that would require censorship of words such as "democracy". MSN is simply sucking up here, in one of the worst ways imaginable.
Never change a running system. If you want something radically new, you're welcome to try it, of course, but the truth is that in reality, progress is usually made in small, incremental steps rather than as a single huge leap where you burn all the bridges.
It's not just limited to computers, either. Take any science really, and you'll see that that's just the way things work - amendments are made, bits and pieces get replaced, and all that, but I couldn't think of a single occasion where there was a radical change in any science where *everything* was scraped and built up again on an entirely different, new foundation.
For that matter, why print your digital photos at all? For me, one of the key advantages of digital photography has always been that there *are* no printed photos by default - less time, less hassle, less attached costs, and less stuff clogging up your drawers.
Don't worry about that.:) The truth simply is that most stories do get submitted by multiple readers, and only one submission is published, of course (not counting dupes, which seem to happen quite often lately). So it's really something that you'll have to get used to.
Slashdot Mirror
That, frankly, is rubbish. Someone who doesn't know about the commands and what they do will have to learn their names anyway; it doesn't matter, for example, whether you have to remember "get-process" or "ps". In fact, it might be easier to remember "ps", as it is shorter and more concise.
As for the suggestion to alias commands so you don't have to type as much - wow, that's even more braindead. Part of the appeal of Unix is that the commands are pretty much the same everywhere - I can use grep to grep for things, for example, and expect it to work more or less the same on every platform. What you're advocating is the creation of an entirely individual set of commands, so administrators will either have to keep both sets of commands in mind (even more of a hassle), or be unable to (easily) understand each other because one abbreviated "get-process" as "gp", one used "ps" instead, and so on.
That just goes to show that "watch" does not automatically imply "wearable", and that "wearable" does not automatically mean "wearable in an easy and/or comfortable way". :)
Cool watch, though.
Doesn't *ANY* LED glow in the dark (with glow as in "emit light")? It's pretty much part of the definition of "LED", isn't it?
And for that matter, LED clocks are quite ubiquitious. Just buy a cheap alarm clock radio, for example - chances are good it'll use LEDs.
The problem is not so much that being off one minute would cause problems - it's that being off one minute *each* day adds up quickly, so you'd regularly have to readjust your clock (every couple of days, at least). And while that certainly is doable, it's also a hassle; people want their watches (like other technology) to "just work" without the need for constant upkeep.
Given enough duct tape, any clock can be made into a watch.
How about this one?
That trivially blocks all the channels you listed, and unless I'm mistaken, it should be the simplest example you can come up with, too.
Of course, that's pretty much what Yahoo is doing, too.
Which words would you use? I dislike buzzwords and empty marketing-speak just as much as anyone on Slashdot, but "developer" isn't one of those buzzwords, I think. Quite the opposite: it's an accurate description of the job done. The same goes for "development".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see the problem.
Abusing monopolies *is* not allowed, though. It's not that you can't be successful; it's just that if you are to a point where you are pretty much the only player left in the field, you're not allowed to use your market share to shut out others.
It's like Microsoft bundling IE with windows, for example - using an OS monopoly to create a browser monopoly. For a similar, less historic example, check what's behind the EU's requirement that M$ make a windows version without media player available. Contrary to what it might seem like, it's not just some bureaucrats running amok; rather, the fundamental idea is that by creating a more level playing field where no single player can bully everyone else, the customers will ultimately benefit. Which, incidentally, is the whole idea behind capitalism.
In that case, I wouldn't be surprised if Google actually sued eBay for using a near-monopoly in one sector (online auctions) to help maintain one in another sector (online credit card payments). And personally, I think it wouldn't be without merit, either.
But then, of course, IANAL.
How about Poogle? It would probably lead to a lawsuit by Neopets, but it actually sounds nice enough (which, incidentally may be one of the reasons the word is used on Neopets).
:)
If that doesn't work, it could always be varied a bit - Poodle comes to mind, for example. Or how about Bagel?
I *really* hope they go through with that. So far, PayPal has what is pretty much a monopoly on online payments; there's alternatives like Moneybookers, but few people even know about them, and PayPal has consistently and systematically abused its monopoly by imposing more and more unreasonable restrictions.
Two that annoy me the most, personally are the fact that you can't use it for "adult" transactions, and that it's quite limited with regard to how you can get your own money that sits in your own account in many countries outside of the USA. In fact, there is a list of countries where the only available option is transferring the money to a US-based bank account - which really is ridiculous when you think about it. It may not matter much to the average US citizen, of course, but think about it - what would you say if you found out that the online payment service you used to have people pay for the stuff you sold on eBay only allows you to transfer the money to a bank account in - say - Uruguay?
PayPal's policies are consistent with those of eBay, though (its mother company nowadays); like eBay, PayPal is entirely inconsiderate of its users, a stark contrast to Google's "do no evil" philosophy.
Let's hope that Google will revolutionize online payments the same way they revolutionized searching, and let's also hope that PayPal will soon be just as forgotten as Hotbot, Northernlight, Mamma and all the search engines we used before Google was there.
There is no release manager. A new kernel gets published when Linus decides it's time; in a way, that makes him the release manager, but it's not really managing as in "creating schedules, specifications, requirements, deadlines and all that". And I at least would rather see him do actual work instead of meeting arbitrary requirements imposed on him by the more marketing-oriented types.
That being said, Linus *has* given a reason why there's no full changelog this *one* time (it's reproduced right above in this very Slashdot discussion, for example); if anyone has issues with that, I assume they're more than welcome to create a full one and post that. If noone does... well, then the itch probably wasn't worth scratching after all.
So there. If it really matters to you, then go and create a full changelog. If it's not worth your time and effort, why do you complain that Linus feels the same way?
Actually... the regular 2.6 kernels are pretty stable, or at least not more unstable than past stable kernel series like 2.4 were. This is especially true if you run the 2.6.x.y kernels (like 2.6.11.12, currently) instead of staying on the bleeding (mainline) edge by constantly upgrading to the latest -rc or even git snapshots.
I for one think that it's all a good idea: instead of backporting features (from devel to stable, or stable to old stable), we're simply back-porting bugfixes applied to mainline to a relatively short-lived stable off-shot so that people can get fixes without new features that also introduce new bugs. That should help stability.
Outside of that... well, yeah, I guess one could complain about the lack of proper regression testing, QA prior to releases, release schedules and all that. But the truth is that these things have not only hindered but actually *helped* a great deal when it comes to Linux development, so I don't see why they should be abolished. In the end, it's the developers that decide how things should work - and that's good, because it's the developers, not management (this includes everyone who's not involved with development), who know best.
That being said, the statement that distros don't roll their own kernels isn't true, anyway. Take Fedora, for example - if you read Dave Jones' blog, you'll notice that a lot of effort *is* going into stabilizing these and making them regression-free. How many distros do you know that ship with vanilla kernels? I know exactly one - Slackware. Every other (big) one uses patched kernels, no matter whether it's Debian, SuSE, RedHat, or whatever else there is.
A year ago, and because it works better (the -mm kernels are the testbed for newer features now). It's been on Slashdot, Kerneltrap, lwn etc., too.
How about being asked once for any given site and then having that answer stored as the default? It seems to me that that's essentially what you want: white- and blacklisting, and you're asked automatically which list a site should be added to when you encounter it for the first time (if it wants to set cookies at all, that is, but if it doesn't, then all's well anyway).
Depends on the studio. ;)
Try being a bit less condescending, and I might even reply to you.
That's not a reason to disallow photographing by others altogether, though. Rather, it's a reason to talk to whoever is responsible for the administrative issues surrounding the organization of the event and ask them to ask the interferer to, well, stop interfering with your work, pointing out that *you* are the one who's the official and paid photographer.
In other words, you certainly can expect people to play along nicely, but I don't see why you'd expect to be the only player in the field.
There often is a difference between what's legal and what's right in a moral sense - in other words, the "right" in "a right" is not the same as in "morally right".
China may have the legal right to do whatever it wants with its citizens, no matter what that is, but it doesn't mean that it's morally OK for them to do it. Furthermore, China *did* sign and ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - in fact, there even was a Chinese professor (Zhang Pengjun) on the commission that drafted the declaration.
That being said - as has been reported, there *is* not even a law in China that would require censorship of words such as "democracy". MSN is simply sucking up here, in one of the worst ways imaginable.
Yeah, but who hangs photographs on their walls, anyway?
Both, probably.
Never change a running system. If you want something radically new, you're welcome to try it, of course, but the truth is that in reality, progress is usually made in small, incremental steps rather than as a single huge leap where you burn all the bridges.
It's not just limited to computers, either. Take any science really, and you'll see that that's just the way things work - amendments are made, bits and pieces get replaced, and all that, but I couldn't think of a single occasion where there was a radical change in any science where *everything* was scraped and built up again on an entirely different, new foundation.
That's the way the world works.
OK, I'll bite. What exactly do you mean by "linux-based camera"?
For that matter, why print your digital photos at all? For me, one of the key advantages of digital photography has always been that there *are* no printed photos by default - less time, less hassle, less attached costs, and less stuff clogging up your drawers.
Don't worry about that. :) The truth simply is that most stories do get submitted by multiple readers, and only one submission is published, of course (not counting dupes, which seem to happen quite often lately). So it's really something that you'll have to get used to.