Wow, it seems that eclipse has jumped on the "million download challenge" bandwagon. Though, this one is a bit less interesting as no one has to swim across the ocean...
More speakers in home theatre set ups will just waste money and space. Sound can be easily projected with as few as 4 well-placed speakers (plus one subwoofer), and its a great deal easier to set up. I can safely guarantee that 99% of homes with 13 speakers will have them placed wrong.
Slackware is much easier to maintain than debian or fedora installations because it lacks package management, so you're not constantly pressured to upgrade the software. It's kind of like running windows used to be, before it harassed the user with monthly "updates" that require "reboots".
From TFA: Young describes Mercury as an "elusive planet," noting most people, astrologers included, have never seen it.
I don't see how this is so unusual, since it's an astrologer's job to look into the future, not to look into space (that would be an astronomer's job).
Although it sounds interesting, a trip to mars would be pretty pointless and useless. Travelling to the moon used to seem like a good idea until we went there. As it turns out, the moon is kind of far away, has no useful resources, and cost a lot of money to visit. As a result, we haven't gone back in quite some time.
Going to mars has pretty much the same drawbacks, but more extreme. I see no point in blowing a large sum of cash to go somewhere only to discover that there's not really anything worth seeing.
I actually started building a wiki for a CS class with this goal in mind. Rather than a traditional HTML wiki, it was built around RDF data. So not only was it able to dump the data in a machine-readable format, it also had a built-in RDQL query engine that worked over http.
To conform to the data model, I had to impose restrictions on the input, but the final product is a lot more reliable than screen-scraping HTML, which is something I hope the kde/wikipedia people avoid in this project.
Wow, who would've imagined that teens want the ability to spend more time on the phone and photographers want their images to last for a long time. I wish I had $100,000 to throw at these people.
having a damned powerful computer in no way makes it easier for someone to design a bomb, as me having XCode makes it easy for me to write a program, as I can't actually program.
Forget building bombs. Filesharing is destroying the economy and will soon be classified as cyberterrorism. Just imagine what would happen if the pirates got their hands on a quantum computer. They'd suddenly be able to bittorrent all movies simultaneously. Such powerful technology could destroy civilization as we know it.
You do realize that netscape invented neither the World Wide Web, nor the Web Browser. It would be absurd for a company to be stealthy about a product that isn't somehow revolutionary.
Wikipedia has a fascinating rendition of how it should have been translated.
A.D. 2101
The war has begun.
Captain: What was that?!
Chief Engineer: It appears someone has planted bombs.
Operator: Captain! We have an incoming transmission!
Captain: What? Who?
Operator: I'll put it on the main screen.
Captain: You! You're...
CATS [with sarcasm]: You seem to be preoccupied, gentlemen.
CATS: With the kind cooperation of the Federation forces, all of your bases are now under our control.
CATS: Your ship, too, will soon meet its end.
Captain: That's... impossible!
CATS: Thanks for coming out this far. You have made it too easy.
CATS: Make the most of these last moments of your lives.
CATS: Ha ha ha ha ha...
Operator: Captain...
Captain: Operator, give a launch order to all ZIG fighters, now!
Captain: We have no time to lose. It's up to them.
Captain: All our hope for the future is in their hands.
Captain: Godspeed, ZIG fighters!
I suppose the best way to describe the British press, in general, is the sort of furvor you see in FOX news, but AGAINST the government and corportations.
So your point is that OS X is easier to install software on because it makes generic unix source installations difficult, therefore producing more work for developers by pressuring them to design drag and drop installers, ultimately reducing the amount of available software for the platform by discouraging developers who use more generic Unix platforms.
Or, more simply, OS X is easier to set up because it runs less software. I just don't see how that is an advantage.
Honestly, I wonder what your experience with linux is. Unless you were using it pre-1998 or running slackware, I can't see where you're getting your information from. In my experience, almost all software that is needed for linux comes with the OS (whether on CD or in repositories) and I can only think of a handful of 3rd-party applications that aren't distributed with the OS (such as java). But even those generally install with ease. The only times that linux software needs configuration is when you're doing something that would require configuration anyway (like running a web server).
I'm not saying that linux is completely free. I'm saying that whatever OS you run will take time to install and configure. Linux makes it very easy to install the base system and almost all of the software you need. Making 3rd party applications easy to install is the responsibility of the application vendors and is in their best interest.
As for OS X, all I can say is that you've obviously never used it. You have to jump through more hoops than I've ever seen to try and get a package management system on OS X that rivals the functionality of apt. And god forbid you ever try to upgrade the pre-installed software before apple does. I spent the better part of a day trying to install a newer version of python on my ibook before giving up and replacing OS X with gentoo.
Basic installs work well but wander away from the pre-installed software and nightmare tangles often ensue.
I find the same to be true with Windows and OS X. Unlike linux however, Windows and OS X have almost no pre-installed software (Windows moreso). Your arguments really only work if you assume that Windows and OS X come preloaded with all of the software that you'll ever need and it's configured exactly how you need it.
I value my time enough to avoid operating systems that don't support apt or yum.
well, my point is that an open source solaris is still a bigger threat to linux than a closed source OS X, especially when you consider that apple is crippling their OS to only run on their own hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who's ever piped the output from 'ls -l' into festival knows this.
Wow, it seems that eclipse has jumped on the "million download challenge" bandwagon. Though, this one is a bit less interesting as no one has to swim across the ocean...
More speakers in home theatre set ups will just waste money and space. Sound can be easily projected with as few as 4 well-placed speakers (plus one subwoofer), and its a great deal easier to set up. I can safely guarantee that 99% of homes with 13 speakers will have them placed wrong.
Slackware is much easier to maintain than debian or fedora installations because it lacks package management, so you're not constantly pressured to upgrade the software. It's kind of like running windows used to be, before it harassed the user with monthly "updates" that require "reboots".
LISP really can't be categorized as a post-C language, as it was created roughly 15 years before C.
I don't see how this is so unusual, since it's an astrologer's job to look into the future, not to look into space (that would be an astronomer's job).
They're going to add a "Marquee" tag so that rss readers can now support scrolling headnlines.
Although it sounds interesting, a trip to mars would be pretty pointless and useless. Travelling to the moon used to seem like a good idea until we went there. As it turns out, the moon is kind of far away, has no useful resources, and cost a lot of money to visit. As a result, we haven't gone back in quite some time.
Going to mars has pretty much the same drawbacks, but more extreme. I see no point in blowing a large sum of cash to go somewhere only to discover that there's not really anything worth seeing.
I actually started building a wiki for a CS class with this goal in mind. Rather than a traditional HTML wiki, it was built around RDF data. So not only was it able to dump the data in a machine-readable format, it also had a built-in RDQL query engine that worked over http.
To conform to the data model, I had to impose restrictions on the input, but the final product is a lot more reliable than screen-scraping HTML, which is something I hope the kde/wikipedia people avoid in this project.
I can just imagine the two-handed web browsing jokes we'll have to read in the future.
Why on earth would anyone want to trade in a real arm for a robotic one? Why not just have 3 arms?
Wow, who would've imagined that teens want the ability to spend more time on the phone and photographers want their images to last for a long time. I wish I had $100,000 to throw at these people.
Forget building bombs. Filesharing is destroying the economy and will soon be classified as cyberterrorism. Just imagine what would happen if the pirates got their hands on a quantum computer. They'd suddenly be able to bittorrent all movies simultaneously. Such powerful technology could destroy civilization as we know it.
You do realize that netscape invented neither the World Wide Web, nor the Web Browser. It would be absurd for a company to be stealthy about a product that isn't somehow revolutionary.
Because copyright is based on the date of publication, not the date of creation.
Wikipedia has a fascinating rendition of how it should have been translated.
A.D. 2101
The war has begun.
Captain: What was that?!
Chief Engineer: It appears someone has planted bombs.
Operator: Captain! We have an incoming transmission!
Captain: What? Who?
Operator: I'll put it on the main screen.
Captain: You! You're...
CATS [with sarcasm]: You seem to be preoccupied, gentlemen.
CATS: With the kind cooperation of the Federation forces, all of your bases are now under our control.
CATS: Your ship, too, will soon meet its end.
Captain: That's... impossible!
CATS: Thanks for coming out this far. You have made it too easy.
CATS: Make the most of these last moments of your lives.
CATS: Ha ha ha ha ha...
Operator: Captain...
Captain: Operator, give a launch order to all ZIG fighters, now!
Captain: We have no time to lose. It's up to them.
Captain: All our hope for the future is in their hands.
Captain: Godspeed, ZIG fighters!
America has that too. It's called NPR.
That's a great idea! There's certainly no incentive to be corrupt when they're only getting $50 to remove ISPs from the blacklist.
Of course. Have you ever tried to swap two images in a web browser with C?
I can just anticipate the number of RTFB posts this article is going to generate.
So your point is that OS X is easier to install software on because it makes generic unix source installations difficult, therefore producing more work for developers by pressuring them to design drag and drop installers, ultimately reducing the amount of available software for the platform by discouraging developers who use more generic Unix platforms.
Or, more simply, OS X is easier to set up because it runs less software. I just don't see how that is an advantage.
Honestly, I wonder what your experience with linux is. Unless you were using it pre-1998 or running slackware, I can't see where you're getting your information from. In my experience, almost all software that is needed for linux comes with the OS (whether on CD or in repositories) and I can only think of a handful of 3rd-party applications that aren't distributed with the OS (such as java). But even those generally install with ease. The only times that linux software needs configuration is when you're doing something that would require configuration anyway (like running a web server).
I'm not saying that linux is completely free. I'm saying that whatever OS you run will take time to install and configure. Linux makes it very easy to install the base system and almost all of the software you need. Making 3rd party applications easy to install is the responsibility of the application vendors and is in their best interest.
As for OS X, all I can say is that you've obviously never used it. You have to jump through more hoops than I've ever seen to try and get a package management system on OS X that rivals the functionality of apt. And god forbid you ever try to upgrade the pre-installed software before apple does. I spent the better part of a day trying to install a newer version of python on my ibook before giving up and replacing OS X with gentoo.
I find the same to be true with Windows and OS X. Unlike linux however, Windows and OS X have almost no pre-installed software (Windows moreso). Your arguments really only work if you assume that Windows and OS X come preloaded with all of the software that you'll ever need and it's configured exactly how you need it.
I value my time enough to avoid operating systems that don't support apt or yum.
well, my point is that an open source solaris is still a bigger threat to linux than a closed source OS X, especially when you consider that apple is crippling their OS to only run on their own hardware.
It usually helps to run the HTML Validator before claiming that HTML is "perfectly valid".