Under intense time pressure to work with previously theoretical isotopes that just might save tens of thousands of American lives?
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian Japanese lives.
One thing I have thought about quite a few times: Why didn't the Americans just drop the atom bomb right *outside* a major city, thereby reducing the loss of lives to a minimum while still sending the same message of "give up, we can bomb you to back to dust"?
> Frankly, I understand the concern. If you are a development shop, then > if OSS creeps into your product (due to a careless (and thoughtless) > developer copy-pasting code, for instance) then the legal ramifications > may be grave. Potentially, depending on the license, you are required to > disclose the entire source of your product,
Bullshit.
If OSS "creeps into your product" by mistake, you won't ever have to disclose the source code you have written. You just lose the right to distribute the product with the stolen code. Remove the stolen code and continue with your usual business.
> You have to love languages where you can combinemultiplewords to expressasingleconcept. I doubt they have German beat, though.
It's actually a great feature, and you need much less context than in English. (Is an "English professor" a professor from England, or a professor from anywhere teaching English language?:)
There's no need to use shell scripts that export LD_LIBRARY_PATH any more, and there hasn't been for many, many years. With the GNU dynamic linker, and any other modern linker, you can spesify an $ORIGIN which will be searched for libraries, for example "./libs".
Also, when I do a compile on Emacs with 'perl -c' I can automatically go to the errors in the Perl code. In vim, I had to enter manually the regular expressions for matching those.
Vim can do that too, for almost any programming language.:compiler perl:make
"Chav is a derogatory slang term in popular usage throughout the UK. It refers to a subculture stereotype of a person who is uneducated, uncultured and prone to antisocial or immoral behavior. The label is typically, though not exclusively, applied to teenagers and young adults of white working-class or lower-middle class origin."
Reminds me of Ali G's interview with Pat Buchanan...:)
Ali G: Does you tink there is a way for people to make the way them teach religion more interesting? Buchanan: Yes. The movie The Passion of the Christ is a very effective teaching tool, I think. Ali G: I heard it ain't as good as Lethal Weapon 3. Buchanan: No, I think it's slightly better than Lethal Weapon 3. Ali G: Ain't it basically a ripoff of Gladiator? Buchanan: No, it's not at all. Ali G: But it's like that kind of thing, innit? Buchanan: No, no, it's about the death and crucifixion of Christ. Ali G: Ain't you scared though that 'cause it's made so much cash, they'll just make a sequel and it won't be as good? Like, you know, have the bloke come back to life, whatever?
Sam Latinga, SDL's original author works for Blizzard, and Blizzard have a history of making Mac versions of their games, so they probably use OpenGL.
You can always hope, but I seriously doubt it will happen.:)
You can't port such systems to a GPLd operating system because then you'd have to release the source code and that's not an option with proprietary 3rd party components.
Hmmm... why not port it and _not_ release it under the GPL!
Guess you never thought of that.
Commercializing Open Source Software ACM Queue vol. 1, no. 5 - July/August 2003 by Michael J. Karels
Introduction
The use of open source software has become increasingly popular in production environments, as well as in research and software development. One obvious attraction is the low cost of acquisition. Commercial software has a higher initial cost, though it usually has advantages such as support and training. A number of business models designed by users and vendors combine open source and commercial software; they use open source as much as possible, adding commercial software as needed. They may use open source software as a central component of a product or service, but use other components to add value, which can then induce customers to pay for the offering (obviously, it is hard to compete with free software on price).
After a brief overview of the salient differences between open source and commercial software, this article will describe several basic business models in today's marketplace to highlight ways that value is added to open source software and services. For the most part, I will discuss only complete software systems sufficient for some useful purpose, such as network servers, which include an operating system and its associated components, any applications needed for the system's purpose, and necessary local configuration information. Many of the same principles apply to components such as applications and other software packages.
Open Source Development
The development process for open source software is often quite different from that of traditional commercial software. In some cases a single author or a small group may develop and distribute a program or system. Successful software often attracts additional developers, however, and larger projects generally require larger teams. These teams tend to be distributed, with participants in different locations and with different affiliations. Some members may contribute their own time; others may be paid to work on the project. Some projects develop infrastructure such as a consortium to coordinate the project; others work with a looser organization. In either case, projects are likely to be organized with less central control than in traditional software development. Some projects may have a strong central figure such as the initial author of the software, but many other projects have "outgrown" central control.
This less-centralized structure affects the development process for open source projects in several ways:
* Community support is often available via mailing lists associated with a project. Response ranges from rapid to nonexistent.
* Projects may have many volunteer contributors. Their abilities and availability can vary significantly.
* In terms of quality, Darwinism applies. Some software features may be added while the project is still incomplete or experimental. These features may eventually be removed or replaced, or they may be improved over time. The addition of features and other modifications is driven by the interests and wishes of the contributors (including companies that pay staff to extend open source software). As users of the software, these contributors have certain common interests in making the software stable and usable. They may have substantially different uses for the software, however, as well as different ideas about how the software should be engineered and extended. The direction taken by the software developers may be driven by those who have the most time to devote to development or by those with the greatest tolerance for the discussions on mailing lists for the project. When different groups design and implement the various subsystems, their architectures might not have similar or compatible styles.
* The open source process is inherently social and political. Group leaders spend as much time on organizational matters and conflict resolution as on technical issues
Slashdot Mirror
well, I switched from being a long time KDE user to GNOME because of 4.2. what a train wreck!
KDE 4.2 has not been released yet.
Under intense time pressure to work with previously theoretical isotopes that just might save tens of thousands of American lives?
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian Japanese lives.
One thing I have thought about quite a few times: Why didn't the Americans just drop the atom bomb right *outside* a major city, thereby reducing the loss of lives to a minimum while still sending the same message of "give up, we can bomb you to back to dust"?
> Frankly, I understand the concern. If you are a development shop, then
> if OSS creeps into your product (due to a careless (and thoughtless)
> developer copy-pasting code, for instance) then the legal ramifications
> may be grave. Potentially, depending on the license, you are required to
> disclose the entire source of your product,
Bullshit.
If OSS "creeps into your product" by mistake, you won't ever have to
disclose the source code you have written. You just lose the right to
distribute the product with the stolen code.
Remove the stolen code and continue with your usual business.
"Poison pill", "viral GPL", etc. is FUD.
"Requires glibc 2.3.2+, gtk+ 2.2.0+"
> You have to love languages where you can combinemultiplewords to expressasingleconcept. I doubt they have German beat, though.
:)
It's actually a great feature, and you need much less context than in English. (Is an "English professor" a professor from England, or a professor from anywhere teaching English language?
Yeah, and the lyrics database it uses has everything:6 ld.png
http://img217.imageshack.us/my.php?image=macgyver
There's no need to use shell scripts that export LD_LIBRARY_PATH any more, and there hasn't been for many, many years. With the GNU dynamic linker, and any other modern linker, you can spesify an $ORIGIN which will be searched for libraries, for example "./libs".
Read this for more about why LD_LIBRARY_PATH is bad practise:
http://www.visi.com/~barr/ldpath.html
Also, when I do a compile on Emacs with 'perl -c' I can automatically go to the errors in the Perl code. In vim, I had to enter manually the regular expressions for matching those.
Vim can do that too, for almost any programming language. :compiler perl :make
"Chav is a derogatory slang term in popular usage throughout the UK. It refers to a subculture stereotype of a person who is uneducated, uncultured and prone to antisocial or immoral behavior. The label is typically, though not exclusively, applied to teenagers and young adults of white working-class or lower-middle class origin."
Which was implemented by Bergen Linux User Group in 2001 :)
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/
Transparency on PNGs is rendered as white
It doesn't render it as white, it uses the image's background colour, which in your case was white.
Reminds me of Ali G's interview with Pat Buchanan... :)
Ali G: Does you tink there is a way for people to make the way them teach religion more interesting?
Buchanan: Yes. The movie The Passion of the Christ is a very effective teaching tool, I think.
Ali G: I heard it ain't as good as Lethal Weapon 3.
Buchanan: No, I think it's slightly better than Lethal Weapon 3.
Ali G: Ain't it basically a ripoff of Gladiator?
Buchanan: No, it's not at all.
Ali G: But it's like that kind of thing, innit?
Buchanan: No, no, it's about the death and crucifixion of Christ.
Ali G: Ain't you scared though that 'cause it's made so much cash, they'll just make a sequel and it won't be as good? Like, you know, have the bloke come back to life, whatever?
http://www.youforgotpoland.com
Sam Latinga, SDL's original author works for Blizzard, and Blizzard have a history of making Mac versions of their games, so they probably use OpenGL. You can always hope, but I seriously doubt it will happen. :)
Istall the TargetAlert extension for Firefox.
http://www.bolinfest.com/targetalert/That would have shown you a small pdf icon after the url.
Gentoo is not my cpu of tea ;-)
I don't think vi can emulate Emacs.
;)
Vim can
http://www.vimacs.cx/
What is a computer party anyway?
LAN" vs. "computer party
To watch them, just get your hands on a 386 and a Gravis UltraSound... and you're good to go!
Or buy Mindcandy.
If there really is a group called 'pro gamers'.. oh PLEASE get them away, at least as far as possible from demo sceners..
:-)
Calm down, sceneres have their own area with "Gamers not allowed" barricade tape around it.
like this
main(){double s,n=1;for(;n If you use a standard-compliant compiler you should set s=0.
Someone else will eventually do this.
Gambas Almost Means Basic
Lots of mirrors here:
http://mmmaybe.gimp.org/downloads/
You can't port such systems to a GPLd operating system because then you'd have to release the source code and that's not an option with proprietary 3rd party components.
Hmmm... why not port it and _not_ release it under the GPL! Guess you never thought of that.
> Does anybody have the text of the article?
Commercializing Open Source Software
ACM Queue vol. 1, no. 5 - July/August 2003
by Michael J. Karels
Introduction
The use of open source software has become increasingly popular in production environments, as well as in research and software development. One obvious attraction is the low cost of acquisition. Commercial software has a higher initial cost, though it usually has advantages such as support and training. A number of business models designed by users and vendors combine open source and commercial software; they use open source as much as possible, adding commercial software as needed. They may use open source software as a central component of a product or service, but use other components to add value, which can then induce customers to pay for the offering (obviously, it is hard to compete with free software on price).
After a brief overview of the salient differences between open source and commercial software, this article will describe several basic business models in today's marketplace to highlight ways that value is added to open source software and services. For the most part, I will discuss only complete software systems sufficient for some useful purpose, such as network servers, which include an operating system and its associated components, any applications needed for the system's purpose, and necessary local configuration information. Many of the same principles apply to components such as applications and other software packages.
Open Source Development
The development process for open source software is often quite different from that of traditional commercial software. In some cases a single author or a small group may develop and distribute a program or system. Successful software often attracts additional developers, however, and larger projects generally require larger teams. These teams tend to be distributed, with participants in different locations and with different affiliations. Some members may contribute their own time; others may be paid to work on the project. Some projects develop infrastructure such as a consortium to coordinate the project; others work with a looser organization. In either case, projects are likely to be organized with less central control than in traditional software development. Some projects may have a strong central figure such as the initial author of the software, but many other projects have "outgrown" central control.
This less-centralized structure affects the development process for open source projects in several ways:
* Community support is often available via mailing lists associated with a project. Response ranges from rapid to nonexistent.
* Projects may have many volunteer contributors. Their abilities and availability can vary significantly.
* In terms of quality, Darwinism applies. Some software features may be added while the project is still incomplete or experimental. These features may eventually be removed or replaced, or they may be improved over time. The addition of features and other modifications is driven by the interests and wishes of the contributors (including companies that pay staff to extend open source software). As users of the software, these contributors have certain common interests in making the software stable and usable. They may have substantially different uses for the software, however, as well as different ideas about how the software should be engineered and extended. The direction taken by the software developers may be driven by those who have the most time to devote to development or by those with the greatest tolerance for the discussions on mailing lists for the project. When different groups design and implement the various subsystems, their architectures might not have similar or compatible styles.
* The open source process is inherently social and political. Group leaders spend as much time on organizational matters and conflict resolution as on technical issues