Maybe that's all your Palm does, but mine keeps my schedule, composes documents and email, balances my checkbook, keeps track of passwords (encrypted), and, most importantly, plays all sorts of games.
Lindows has been around for, how long? The hype for Lindows, and other products that don't live up to it, won't last, and such products go away over time. Palm has proven itself by the large number of happy users, even when more "flashy" alternatives are available (WinCE, PocketPC, Clie, iPaq, etc.). Palm 6.0, and for that matter Palm 5.0 (which has not yet been released), are evolutionary.
If all you can think to put on your Palm is addresses, then maybe it's just something that isn't right for your lifestyle. There isn't a whole lot more truly practical things that any Palm-type device will ever be able to do, although maybe people in your situation will be tempted by multimedia offerings ("Ooh, look, I've got this pretty picture on my little 3-inch screen"). I suppose that the goals of all future Palm releases will mainly center around attracting users such as yourself, who need a look-at-this-cool-gadget-that-plays-songs excuse to justify the cost.
My point is, if you don't think Palm has already lived up to the hype, then there probably won't be a lot more in the way of everyday, practical, dayplanner-replacement features coming. Maybe you'd be better off with a paper notebook, a gameboy, and a cell phone:-)
A couple other people have said this already, but if I announce an "attack", who says that the attack is really taking place? Why can't I just tell the routers to quench some random "source" and cause a reverse DOS (wouldn't even need to be distributed)?
Also, if you have other sculptures with holes in them, you cannot reshape them into a sphere without breaking or joining anything.
Now, for the purposes of this problem, we only actually care about the surface of the Play-Doh ball. The surface has 2 dimensions, making the Play-Doh ball a 2-sphere (a 2-manifold). It's pretty obvious that the conjecture is true for Play-Doh, and proving that the conjecture is true for 2-manifolds has already been done. Immagine, if you can, that the Play-Doh's surface is actually in three dimensions, and the Play-Doh itself is actually 4 dimensions. Then you get an idea of the problem.
I suspect that the actual number of Mac users back then is still smaller than the number today. I can't back this up, but if you think about it, how many millions more computer users are there today than then? Microsoft picked up the new ones, and Apple kept the loyal ones.
It's not the doctors' fault lots of people are fat. Doctors have been saying the same thing for decades: eat healthy and excersise. How hard is it to excersise? Apparantly way too hard for most people. So put the blame where it needs to go: it's the lardo's fault he's a lardo. (My apologies to anyone with some kind of genetic condition -- "I'm not fat, it's glandular!" -HS)
Was this guy's name Thien Pham? Just wondering... I know a guy who works pretty much in the same way. He's now trying to market his "encryption" for use in the US's National ID system inside smart cards. The only thing secure about it is the assumption that no one else knows how it works. Dissassemble the compiled algorithm, and whammo.
Of course I didn't actually see the algorithm... that would ruin the whole thing!
In a perfect world, you'd be right. But think about how BitKeeper is able to support its own development: money. Not everyone can simply donate all of their time to the community.
So, BitKeeper has done the next best thing. They donate some of their time to the community, in the form of the free version of their license. But they still have to make money, or else the software would not exist.
If you want to use it for anything, pay for it. The non-free license doesn't contain this restriction. If you aren't paying for it and you decide to take advantage of their generosity, by hurting their money-making abilities or any number of other ways, then you are a theif. Plain and simple.
Be greatful for the generosity they have shown, and hope that they do not turn against the community completely because of all your (not just you, khuber) whining. Like I said, the free software community depends on industry support, and industry support depends on free software's ability to generate cash.
Yes CVS is powerful and fast, but anyone who uses it long enough knows there are just some CVS features that are hacks. Binary file support for one example, renaming files, and the biggest of all, renaming directories. If you can make a project that never has to reorganize in its history, then you are some kind of diety.
The reason Subversion, BitKeeper, and a whole host of other next-generation SCM products are being developed is because CVS just plain doesn't cut it for most serious development. It works, but not nicely.
Subversion is not distributed, so while having independent, distributed source trees is a nice feature of BitKeeper that some projects require, it is not the only reason to switch.
So many people here are getting all upset because BitKeeper is not free. Well, there's nothing wrong with trying to make money off of some software, while helping the community at the same time.
No business in their right mind is going to help a competetor take their market share. Maybe BitKeeper can't help if Subversion takes that market on its own, but they are not going to help them do it.
Disclaimer: I have a huge interest in Subversion, and I've been contributing to their mailing list for almost a year. I love Subversion. But I still implore all you Slashdot hippies: do not assume that all non-free software is evil, and do not make BitKeeper the bad guy just because they want to make money.
Free software depends on a few companies' ability to actually make money developing and using free software. Without industry support, free software will never make it past a select few geeks' basement computers. If you like free software, then you should support BitKeeper's decision. BitKeeper has helped the FS community in the past, and their support for the kernel project has been wonderful. Support them, help the FS industry grow, and everyone benefits.
It's not that the processor can't count above 32-bits. There are 64-bit (or even higher) long long integers, and Java longs are also 64-bits. The difference is that for 64-bits on a 32-bit computer, the processor actually has to do the addition in two steps, once for each 32-bit dword. Unix programmers knew rightly that this is a little less efficient than straight 32-bit numbers, in addition to the fact that 64-bits takes twice as much memory. So they decided to go the efficient route, instead of the correct route.
There is nothing about 32-bit processors that prevents 64-bit datatypes from being emulated. Many Unixes are already migrating; the new time_t structures really are 64-bit. Java time, and I'm sure there's lots of other examples, is 64-bit as well.
I believe it was fixed, in time to not cause any airplanes to drop out of the sky. Yes, it took insane media coverage and m/billions of dollars to do it. Really, (disregarding the media coverage), it would have taken the same to replace all those machines in the first place, twenty years ago.
I say Good Riddance. If you're still using your 1x-speed cartridge CDROM that plugs into the back of your 8-bit Pro Logic sound card (that was so huge it took two ISA slots), then do you really care about upgrading? I'm being serious here.
I used to have one of those. Wing Commander II was sweet!
I am seriously wanting to buy a mac, so this is not biased because I'm a PC junkie, but:
On PCs, you do also have Alt, Control, and Shift, and even Meta and Hyper if you use some *nix and map the Windows and Menu keys. Now, combine those with the 6 buttons on my mouse (Left, Right, Middle, Scroll Up/Down, Thumb), that's up to, let's see,... well, I don't remember my combinatorial math, but something like 5! * 6 = a hell of a lot of different ways to click or scroll. So, as much as I want to get a Mac, there's no question that PCs have the stupid single-button mouse beat in that arena.
Besides, who wants to have to use two hands to right-click?!? When I'm browsing some pr0n I want to "Save Image As...", that means...
Physicists have directly observed quarks countless times. You smash a couple protons together, and their quarks fly away.
But besides that, even if no one had directly observed them, given what we do know about the actual behaviour of protons and other subatomic particles, the theoretical framework designed to explain those behaviours predicts certain numbers of quarks, as well as the charges, spins, and a dozen other types of particles.
From what I understand, it's not. Censorship is what happens when people *deny* other people the right to see the sex and violence. All Clean Flicks does is edit the films *at the request of the customer* (who already owns the film, by the way). The customers retain their right to see the original versions. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how that is censorship at all.
This is different than Blockbuster editing films, which is censorship, because when that happens, suddenly it becomes difficult for customers to see the original version.
Are you joking, or do you have a link? If you aren't joking, then I'm sure we'd all appreciate some more information. If you are joking, then, um, I don't get it..
Having to specify the mime type of every picture you use seems like extra work for no gain as well. What happens if you leave that off?
Don't worry, the mime-type is not required. The benefit of using it is that the user-agent can look at the mime-type to see if it knows how to support it, before it actually fetches the file. If my browser doesn't support application/x-shockwave, then it will just skip over that object and go straight to the alternate text.
Anyway, the point is, it's not required. It's just a little extra hint. It will probably never make it into widespread use, except on anal-retentive geek sites (not/.).
Now just remove the "div class" and you've got semantic, self-describing XML. I'd say that's a *whole* lot better than three levels of nested tables and <font> tags. I'd use real XML along with XSLT and CSS instead of even any div tags, except I have other requirements related to HTML validators and editors.
Yes, it's still not a standard format that can be understood by, say, a semantic search engine, but that's what RDF is for. No matter how you look at it, true XML with custom tags or just div tags with classes, it kicks tables' asses.
The nice thing about the new standards (and improving with CSS2/3) is that most of the use for table tags is gone now. I've built my personal homepage (click my URL, although it's down atm) entirely *without* tables. The only thing I use is a heirarchial system of tags using different classes.
Finally, designers can design pages in a way that makes sense (50px margin, right justify, inline, block, background-repeat, etc.), instead of doing all that table crap. Hopefully the designers that can't program well enough to master table tags can use something that's more compatible with their existing graphics layout experience.
Oh yeah, about the time tests, that's pretty funny. In fourth and fifth grade (same teacher) I took "Minute Math" quizzes -- you had one minute to answer as many basic arithmatic problems as possible, out of 50 total.
As much as I hated that, I can't say it didn't help. I was a kid who didn't want to learn my tables (I still hate memorizing stuff), and if not for those stupid tests, I probably would like math in a theoretical sense but I still wouldn't be able to multiply 6*7 and immediately know that it's 42 (the most important thing to know, of course).
Then again, my teacher went far beyond the stupid quizzes and really made me love school. She was probably the best teacher I ever had. That is, until her son went and killed a former teacher that had molested him -- if you're from the Seattle area you might remember the Cloud family -- that kind of messed her up.
My kingdom for a mod point! I felt the same way at that age. Seriously, as a lot of people have pointed out, first grade is the age where she will start to decide for herself, but she is *far* from deciding anything absolutely.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe that's all your Palm does, but mine keeps my schedule, composes documents and email, balances my checkbook, keeps track of passwords (encrypted), and, most importantly, plays all sorts of games.
:-)
Lindows has been around for, how long? The hype for Lindows, and other products that don't live up to it, won't last, and such products go away over time. Palm has proven itself by the large number of happy users, even when more "flashy" alternatives are available (WinCE, PocketPC, Clie, iPaq, etc.). Palm 6.0, and for that matter Palm 5.0 (which has not yet been released), are evolutionary.
If all you can think to put on your Palm is addresses, then maybe it's just something that isn't right for your lifestyle. There isn't a whole lot more truly practical things that any Palm-type device will ever be able to do, although maybe people in your situation will be tempted by multimedia offerings ("Ooh, look, I've got this pretty picture on my little 3-inch screen"). I suppose that the goals of all future Palm releases will mainly center around attracting users such as yourself, who need a look-at-this-cool-gadget-that-plays-songs excuse to justify the cost.
My point is, if you don't think Palm has already lived up to the hype, then there probably won't be a lot more in the way of everyday, practical, dayplanner-replacement features coming. Maybe you'd be better off with a paper notebook, a gameboy, and a cell phone
A couple other people have said this already, but if I announce an "attack", who says that the attack is really taking place? Why can't I just tell the routers to quench some random "source" and cause a reverse DOS (wouldn't even need to be distributed)?
Also, if you have other sculptures with holes in them, you cannot reshape them into a sphere without breaking or joining anything.
Now, for the purposes of this problem, we only actually care about the surface of the Play-Doh ball. The surface has 2 dimensions, making the Play-Doh ball a 2-sphere (a 2-manifold). It's pretty obvious that the conjecture is true for Play-Doh, and proving that the conjecture is true for 2-manifolds has already been done. Immagine, if you can, that the Play-Doh's surface is actually in three dimensions, and the Play-Doh itself is actually 4 dimensions. Then you get an idea of the problem.
[offtopic] Who can confuse those? Mute=Meeyote, Moot=um...Moot. Just sound out the "oo", does it make a "y" sound?
I suspect that the actual number of Mac users back then is still smaller than the number today. I can't back this up, but if you think about it, how many millions more computer users are there today than then? Microsoft picked up the new ones, and Apple kept the loyal ones.
It's not the doctors' fault lots of people are fat. Doctors have been saying the same thing for decades: eat healthy and excersise. How hard is it to excersise? Apparantly way too hard for most people. So put the blame where it needs to go: it's the lardo's fault he's a lardo. (My apologies to anyone with some kind of genetic condition -- "I'm not fat, it's glandular!" -HS)
In the GENERAL CASE, you cannot compress random data. If the guy wants to get 1.5 compression ratio on the OTP key, then, well, too bad.
I know you're just being pedantic, but you've basically contradicted yourself.
A one time pad has to be completely random, and it is impossible to compress truly random data.
Was this guy's name Thien Pham? Just wondering... I know a guy who works pretty much in the same way. He's now trying to market his "encryption" for use in the US's National ID system inside smart cards. The only thing secure about it is the assumption that no one else knows how it works. Dissassemble the compiled algorithm, and whammo.
Of course I didn't actually see the algorithm... that would ruin the whole thing!
In a perfect world, you'd be right. But think about how BitKeeper is able to support its own development: money. Not everyone can simply donate all of their time to the community.
So, BitKeeper has done the next best thing. They donate some of their time to the community, in the form of the free version of their license. But they still have to make money, or else the software would not exist.
If you want to use it for anything, pay for it. The non-free license doesn't contain this restriction. If you aren't paying for it and you decide to take advantage of their generosity, by hurting their money-making abilities or any number of other ways, then you are a theif. Plain and simple.
Be greatful for the generosity they have shown, and hope that they do not turn against the community completely because of all your (not just you, khuber) whining. Like I said, the free software community depends on industry support, and industry support depends on free software's ability to generate cash.
Yes CVS is powerful and fast, but anyone who uses it long enough knows there are just some CVS features that are hacks. Binary file support for one example, renaming files, and the biggest of all, renaming directories. If you can make a project that never has to reorganize in its history, then you are some kind of diety.
The reason Subversion, BitKeeper, and a whole host of other next-generation SCM products are being developed is because CVS just plain doesn't cut it for most serious development. It works, but not nicely.
Subversion is not distributed, so while having independent, distributed source trees is a nice feature of BitKeeper that some projects require, it is not the only reason to switch.
So many people here are getting all upset because BitKeeper is not free. Well, there's nothing wrong with trying to make money off of some software, while helping the community at the same time.
No business in their right mind is going to help a competetor take their market share. Maybe BitKeeper can't help if Subversion takes that market on its own, but they are not going to help them do it.
Disclaimer: I have a huge interest in Subversion, and I've been contributing to their mailing list for almost a year. I love Subversion. But I still implore all you Slashdot hippies: do not assume that all non-free software is evil, and do not make BitKeeper the bad guy just because they want to make money.
Free software depends on a few companies' ability to actually make money developing and using free software. Without industry support, free software will never make it past a select few geeks' basement computers. If you like free software, then you should support BitKeeper's decision. BitKeeper has helped the FS community in the past, and their support for the kernel project has been wonderful. Support them, help the FS industry grow, and everyone benefits.
It's not that the processor can't count above 32-bits. There are 64-bit (or even higher) long long integers, and Java longs are also 64-bits. The difference is that for 64-bits on a 32-bit computer, the processor actually has to do the addition in two steps, once for each 32-bit dword. Unix programmers knew rightly that this is a little less efficient than straight 32-bit numbers, in addition to the fact that 64-bits takes twice as much memory. So they decided to go the efficient route, instead of the correct route.
There is nothing about 32-bit processors that prevents 64-bit datatypes from being emulated. Many Unixes are already migrating; the new time_t structures really are 64-bit. Java time, and I'm sure there's lots of other examples, is 64-bit as well.
I believe it was fixed, in time to not cause any airplanes to drop out of the sky. Yes, it took insane media coverage and m/billions of dollars to do it. Really, (disregarding the media coverage), it would have taken the same to replace all those machines in the first place, twenty years ago.
Frodo isn't really dead either, right??
I mean, um, oops....
I say Good Riddance. If you're still using your 1x-speed cartridge CDROM that plugs into the back of your 8-bit Pro Logic sound card (that was so huge it took two ISA slots), then do you really care about upgrading? I'm being serious here.
I used to have one of those. Wing Commander II was sweet!
I am seriously wanting to buy a mac, so this is not biased because I'm a PC junkie, but:
... well, I don't remember my combinatorial math, but something like 5! * 6 = a hell of a lot of different ways to click or scroll. So, as much as I want to get a Mac, there's no question that PCs have the stupid single-button mouse beat in that arena.
On PCs, you do also have Alt, Control, and Shift, and even Meta and Hyper if you use some *nix and map the Windows and Menu keys. Now, combine those with the 6 buttons on my mouse (Left, Right, Middle, Scroll Up/Down, Thumb), that's up to, let's see,
Besides, who wants to have to use two hands to right-click?!? When I'm browsing some pr0n I want to "Save Image As...", that means...
Physicists have directly observed quarks countless times. You smash a couple protons together, and their quarks fly away.
But besides that, even if no one had directly observed them, given what we do know about the actual behaviour of protons and other subatomic particles, the theoretical framework designed to explain those behaviours predicts certain numbers of quarks, as well as the charges, spins, and a dozen other types of particles.
So, what exactly are you asking?
The first one is simple. It's censorship.
From what I understand, it's not. Censorship is what happens when people *deny* other people the right to see the sex and violence. All Clean Flicks does is edit the films *at the request of the customer* (who already owns the film, by the way). The customers retain their right to see the original versions. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how that is censorship at all.
This is different than Blockbuster editing films, which is censorship, because when that happens, suddenly it becomes difficult for customers to see the original version.
Are you joking, or do you have a link? If you aren't joking, then I'm sure we'd all appreciate some more information. If you are joking, then, um, I don't get it..
Having to specify the mime type of every picture you use seems like extra work for no gain as well. What happens if you leave that off?
/.).
Don't worry, the mime-type is not required. The benefit of using it is that the user-agent can look at the mime-type to see if it knows how to support it, before it actually fetches the file. If my browser doesn't support application/x-shockwave, then it will just skip over that object and go straight to the alternate text.
Anyway, the point is, it's not required. It's just a little extra hint. It will probably never make it into widespread use, except on anal-retentive geek sites (not
Tables for layout, yes. My div elements look like this:
... ...
<div class="blog">
<div class="entry">
<div class="summary">...</div>
<div class="date">...</div>
</div>
</div>
Now just remove the "div class" and you've got semantic, self-describing XML. I'd say that's a *whole* lot better than three levels of nested tables and <font> tags. I'd use real XML along with XSLT and CSS instead of even any div tags, except I have other requirements related to HTML validators and editors.
Yes, it's still not a standard format that can be understood by, say, a semantic search engine, but that's what RDF is for. No matter how you look at it, true XML with custom tags or just div tags with classes, it kicks tables' asses.
The nice thing about the new standards (and improving with CSS2/3) is that most of the use for table tags is gone now. I've built my personal homepage (click my URL, although it's down atm) entirely *without* tables. The only thing I use is a heirarchial system of tags using different classes.
Finally, designers can design pages in a way that makes sense (50px margin, right justify, inline, block, background-repeat, etc.), instead of doing all that table crap. Hopefully the designers that can't program well enough to master table tags can use something that's more compatible with their existing graphics layout experience.
Oh yeah, about the time tests, that's pretty funny. In fourth and fifth grade (same teacher) I took "Minute Math" quizzes -- you had one minute to answer as many basic arithmatic problems as possible, out of 50 total.
As much as I hated that, I can't say it didn't help. I was a kid who didn't want to learn my tables (I still hate memorizing stuff), and if not for those stupid tests, I probably would like math in a theoretical sense but I still wouldn't be able to multiply 6*7 and immediately know that it's 42 (the most important thing to know, of course).
Then again, my teacher went far beyond the stupid quizzes and really made me love school. She was probably the best teacher I ever had. That is, until her son went and killed a former teacher that had molested him -- if you're from the Seattle area you might remember the Cloud family -- that kind of messed her up.
My kingdom for a mod point! I felt the same way at that age. Seriously, as a lot of people have pointed out, first grade is the age where she will start to decide for herself, but she is *far* from deciding anything absolutely.