I had an Apple//c, which was essentially a semi-portable version of the ][e AFAIK (the main unit had a handle and integrated disk drive and was approximately the right size to fit in a briefcase). It definitely had a mouse, and in fact some programs (such as Paint) were primarily mouse- and GUI-driven.
This is true from a practical standpoint, but not necessarily true from a theoretical standpoint. It is, given enough knowledge, and barring too much non-deterministic misbehavior from quantum mechanics, to derive behaviors of larger systems from their constituent parts. However, it takes a lot of very careful calculations, and thus is usually infeasible, and is often prone to error. Thus, it's only used where it's both really absolutely necessary and where there's a lot of money available to fund the simulations. Thus only a few isolated things -- explosions of nuclear weapons, for example -- are simulated by individually modeling the constituent microscopic parts.
Now with societies, this might be the only way to go. We don't really have enough examples of societies to be able to glean at a macroscopic level the abstract features of societies while not being tripped up by merely accidental and inconsequential features. Thus modeling individual behavior might give more insights. However, constructing such a model accurately is likely to be even more difficult than constructing an accurate model of a nuclear explosion, since people tend to behave in less predictable ways than atoms and electrons do.
They used to have a monopoly on essentially all non-business computers (particularly school and home educational markets). Like Microsoft, they achieved this partly through (at least initially) superior products -- their stuff was easy to use, while the IBMs of the day often didn't even have a mouse -- but also through some somewhat anti-competitive business practices -- donating Apple//e's to schools, signing up producers of popular educational software to exclusive agreements, etc.
While I agree that's one reason, the other reason Americans call people more than Europeans is the cost. Most Americans have cell phone plans that include some large number of minutes per month (or even commonly unlimited nights and weekends), so there's no cost to just calling someone up and talking to them for 2 minutes. Europeans, on the other hand, generally have to pay by the minute for outgoing calls, so are much more likely to do things like send the cheaper SMS.
It's well-established that judges can interpret Congress's intent in writing a law to determine how it should be applied (the Supreme Court probably does this more than lower courts do, but in principle any federal court can). The EFF claims that the DMCA is being applied in ways Congress didn't intend, which would indicate that this is a failure on the part of judges to properly understand Congress's intent.
If you can't see the difference between true authoritarianism and things like restricting music trading or software copying.
If the U.S. were an authoritarian country akin to Singapore, Egypt, or China, it would be illegal for me to say something like "I think George W. Bush is a poor leader and should be replaced as soon as possible." However, that is not the case.
But technical titles are a good start, and one of the more useful areas for electronic books anyway. I can't count the number of times I've wished I could do a full-text search on one of my technical reference books instead of clunkily looking through the index. This is useful for some other areas (philosophy in particular), but not so much for things like fiction books.
They did however invent AIM in-house (it was originally the AOL messaging service, and then they created a stand-alone client for non-AOL users). It's not perfect, but it's definitely sufficient, and it's by far the most reliable messaging network I've used (I think there's only been a single instance of greater-than-8-hour downtime in the past 6 years I've been using it, and I can't recall a single instance of downtime greater than 1 minute in the past 2-3 years).
You could just send out a bunch of spam advertising your competitors' URLs. The exposure they'd get from the spam would be more than counteracted by the harm they'd suffer from having their site disconnected.
...believes code should be well formed, it's terminology and functions properly called and invoked...
I would like to call your attention to the fact that the character sequence "it's" is a macro that is expanded by the preprocessor to the sequence "it is". Thus the sentence fragment above, once preprocessed, reads "...believes code should be well formed, it is terminology and functions properly called and invoked..." This bit of code, as it were, is clearly not well formed.
If you're referring to the character, it's of course an asterisk. If you're referring to its function in the previous post, it's to provide emphasis, but isn't standard typography at all. The pratice originated in online discussions that were restricted to plaintext; in that context, it functions tolerably well as a replacement for boldface or italicized type to provide emphasis to certain words or parts of words (much as _underscores_ serve to simulate underlining a word). This of course makes it relatively useless in a forum that actually does allow both boldface and italicized type for emphasis, but the practice has persisted.
SACDs, especially the sampler discs designed to impress you, are almost certainly mastered far better than standard CDs. Most CDs these days have a ridiculously high level of dynamic compression so that they'll sound "loud enough" to compete with other songs on the radio, which of course makes them sound like crap compared to a properly-mastered CD. Simply mastering a standard CD properly and carefully would probably get you most of the improvements you're hearing in the SACD -- the difference from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz and from 16- to 32-bit is very minute by comparison.
I don't think it's actually possible to learn how to configure X properly. There's about 5 different "standard" ways of setting up fonts in X, and the details change with every revision. To make matters worse, many of the important ones (like Xft) are poorly documented.
It's publishing the description that's illegal. Thus if the source code is indeed a description, Red Hat cannot legally publish it, regardless of whether you read it or not.
Everyone else calls the US "America" for short as well. In fact, in my experience, the British seem to do this more often than the Americans do (Americans will refer to people from the US as "American," but only refer to the US itself as "America" in slogans like "God Bless America," not in common speech). And most other languages I know of call the US "America" (Greek being one example that I cited; the only other term you could use in Greek would be "person from the United States," which is rather cumbersome).
This being the sense of the word that just about everyone (including most people not from the USA) uses. When you read a headline in the Economist (a UK publication) that says "America's War on Terrorism," you can be pretty sure that they're not talking about Guatemala. If a Greek tells you that he went to "Ameriki" for vacation, you can be pretty sure that he didn't go to Peru. And so on.
What if RMS were persuaded by these arguments that BK is actually a good licensing scheme? Then the FSF, as the sole gcc copyright holder, could add a license restriction to gcc saying "can't be used to compile Bitkeeper." I don't think BK could win that licensing war. The only reason they can survive currently is that the FSF has some ideals they uphold on their licensing.
Even if it is far inferior to "normal" Linux, I can see that this would be useful as an alternative to Windows. At the very least it's not worse than Windows in terms of security. So if some people switch, that's less dependence on Microsoft, and once they're used to Lindows it might be easier to eventually get them to switch over to something else.
It's incredibly difficult to automatically parellelize a program well. Even when you can run a preprocessor on it and spend days on computations; doing it in real-time in hardware is even more difficult. This is currently done to a small extent in the pipelining hardware of modern CPUs, and even that small bit of automatic parallelization is ridiculously complex and slows things down (which is why the Itanium dumped it, and put the onus on the computer to paralellize sufficiently for pipelining to work). If it's that difficult to do for the relatively meager paralellization requirements of pipelining, actually breaking the program into separate execution threads is damn near impossible with current technology (at least with any efficiency even remotely approaching writing a program to be properly multithreaded in the first place).
Verisign only attempts to do one of them -- verify that the site is who they say they are. Thus when you see "certificate from Amazon.com, signed by Verisign," if Verisign has done their job properly you can indeed be sure that this is Amazon.com's genuine certificate and not a forged one created by a malicious third party intercepting your communications (perhaps at the router level).
Now you're entirely correct that even if that's done, there's the additional question of "okay, so this really is Amazon.com; but is Amazon.com trustworthy?" I don't think the CA system is intended to answer that question; it's merely intended to let you know for certain that your communications aren't being intercepted. Furthermore, I don't think it would need to. The encryption system only needs to verify the authenticity of the other party; to determine the trusthworthiness of the other party, things liek resellerratings.com (expanded perhaps to other issues such as privacy and security) can suffice, since the ratings/review system doesn't need to be built into the encryption infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
I had an Apple //c, which was essentially a semi-portable version of the ][e AFAIK (the main unit had a handle and integrated disk drive and was approximately the right size to fit in a briefcase). It definitely had a mouse, and in fact some programs (such as Paint) were primarily mouse- and GUI-driven.
This is true from a practical standpoint, but not necessarily true from a theoretical standpoint. It is, given enough knowledge, and barring too much non-deterministic misbehavior from quantum mechanics, to derive behaviors of larger systems from their constituent parts. However, it takes a lot of very careful calculations, and thus is usually infeasible, and is often prone to error. Thus, it's only used where it's both really absolutely necessary and where there's a lot of money available to fund the simulations. Thus only a few isolated things -- explosions of nuclear weapons, for example -- are simulated by individually modeling the constituent microscopic parts.
Now with societies, this might be the only way to go. We don't really have enough examples of societies to be able to glean at a macroscopic level the abstract features of societies while not being tripped up by merely accidental and inconsequential features. Thus modeling individual behavior might give more insights. However, constructing such a model accurately is likely to be even more difficult than constructing an accurate model of a nuclear explosion, since people tend to behave in less predictable ways than atoms and electrons do.
They used to have a monopoly on essentially all non-business computers (particularly school and home educational markets). Like Microsoft, they achieved this partly through (at least initially) superior products -- their stuff was easy to use, while the IBMs of the day often didn't even have a mouse -- but also through some somewhat anti-competitive business practices -- donating Apple //e's to schools, signing up producers of popular educational software to exclusive agreements, etc.
By the time anybody cared at all about UNIX on the PC, UNIX was already quite dominant on "enterprise-level" hardware (at least compared to VMS).
While I agree that's one reason, the other reason Americans call people more than Europeans is the cost. Most Americans have cell phone plans that include some large number of minutes per month (or even commonly unlimited nights and weekends), so there's no cost to just calling someone up and talking to them for 2 minutes. Europeans, on the other hand, generally have to pay by the minute for outgoing calls, so are much more likely to do things like send the cheaper SMS.
It's well-established that judges can interpret Congress's intent in writing a law to determine how it should be applied (the Supreme Court probably does this more than lower courts do, but in principle any federal court can). The EFF claims that the DMCA is being applied in ways Congress didn't intend, which would indicate that this is a failure on the part of judges to properly understand Congress's intent.
If you can't see the difference between true authoritarianism and things like restricting music trading or software copying.
If the U.S. were an authoritarian country akin to Singapore, Egypt, or China, it would be illegal for me to say something like "I think George W. Bush is a poor leader and should be replaced as soon as possible." However, that is not the case.
But technical titles are a good start, and one of the more useful areas for electronic books anyway. I can't count the number of times I've wished I could do a full-text search on one of my technical reference books instead of clunkily looking through the index. This is useful for some other areas (philosophy in particular), but not so much for things like fiction books.
They did however invent AIM in-house (it was originally the AOL messaging service, and then they created a stand-alone client for non-AOL users). It's not perfect, but it's definitely sufficient, and it's by far the most reliable messaging network I've used (I think there's only been a single instance of greater-than-8-hour downtime in the past 6 years I've been using it, and I can't recall a single instance of downtime greater than 1 minute in the past 2-3 years).
You could just send out a bunch of spam advertising your competitors' URLs. The exposure they'd get from the spam would be more than counteracted by the harm they'd suffer from having their site disconnected.
The contraction expansion takes place before the possessive resolution does. The possessive of "it" is thus defined to be "its" as a special case.
...believes code should be well formed, it's terminology and functions properly called and invoked...
I would like to call your attention to the fact that the character sequence "it's" is a macro that is expanded by the preprocessor to the sequence "it is". Thus the sentence fragment above, once preprocessed, reads "...believes code should be well formed, it is terminology and functions properly called and invoked..." This bit of code, as it were, is clearly not well formed.
If you're referring to the character, it's of course an asterisk. If you're referring to its function in the previous post, it's to provide emphasis, but isn't standard typography at all. The pratice originated in online discussions that were restricted to plaintext; in that context, it functions tolerably well as a replacement for boldface or italicized type to provide emphasis to certain words or parts of words (much as _underscores_ serve to simulate underlining a word). This of course makes it relatively useless in a forum that actually does allow both boldface and italicized type for emphasis, but the practice has persisted.
SACDs, especially the sampler discs designed to impress you, are almost certainly mastered far better than standard CDs. Most CDs these days have a ridiculously high level of dynamic compression so that they'll sound "loud enough" to compete with other songs on the radio, which of course makes them sound like crap compared to a properly-mastered CD. Simply mastering a standard CD properly and carefully would probably get you most of the improvements you're hearing in the SACD -- the difference from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz and from 16- to 32-bit is very minute by comparison.
I don't think it's actually possible to learn how to configure X properly. There's about 5 different "standard" ways of setting up fonts in X, and the details change with every revision. To make matters worse, many of the important ones (like Xft) are poorly documented.
If the only Europeans US tourists come into contact with are Parisians, no wonder they think all Europeans are pompous pricks.
It's publishing the description that's illegal. Thus if the source code is indeed a description, Red Hat cannot legally publish it, regardless of whether you read it or not.
Everyone else calls the US "America" for short as well. In fact, in my experience, the British seem to do this more often than the Americans do (Americans will refer to people from the US as "American," but only refer to the US itself as "America" in slogans like "God Bless America," not in common speech). And most other languages I know of call the US "America" (Greek being one example that I cited; the only other term you could use in Greek would be "person from the United States," which is rather cumbersome).
...America == USA.
This being the sense of the word that just about everyone (including most people not from the USA) uses. When you read a headline in the Economist (a UK publication) that says "America's War on Terrorism," you can be pretty sure that they're not talking about Guatemala. If a Greek tells you that he went to "Ameriki" for vacation, you can be pretty sure that he didn't go to Peru. And so on.
What if RMS were persuaded by these arguments that BK is actually a good licensing scheme? Then the FSF, as the sole gcc copyright holder, could add a license restriction to gcc saying "can't be used to compile Bitkeeper." I don't think BK could win that licensing war. The only reason they can survive currently is that the FSF has some ideals they uphold on their licensing.
"Hey baby, you know research has shown that the network of human sexual partners seems to be scale-free."
Even if it is far inferior to "normal" Linux, I can see that this would be useful as an alternative to Windows. At the very least it's not worse than Windows in terms of security. So if some people switch, that's less dependence on Microsoft, and once they're used to Lindows it might be easier to eventually get them to switch over to something else.
In reference to the Itanium's pipelining, I of course meant "put the onus on the compiler..."
It's incredibly difficult to automatically parellelize a program well. Even when you can run a preprocessor on it and spend days on computations; doing it in real-time in hardware is even more difficult. This is currently done to a small extent in the pipelining hardware of modern CPUs, and even that small bit of automatic parallelization is ridiculously complex and slows things down (which is why the Itanium dumped it, and put the onus on the computer to paralellize sufficiently for pipelining to work). If it's that difficult to do for the relatively meager paralellization requirements of pipelining, actually breaking the program into separate execution threads is damn near impossible with current technology (at least with any efficiency even remotely approaching writing a program to be properly multithreaded in the first place).
Verisign only attempts to do one of them -- verify that the site is who they say they are. Thus when you see "certificate from Amazon.com, signed by Verisign," if Verisign has done their job properly you can indeed be sure that this is Amazon.com's genuine certificate and not a forged one created by a malicious third party intercepting your communications (perhaps at the router level).
Now you're entirely correct that even if that's done, there's the additional question of "okay, so this really is Amazon.com; but is Amazon.com trustworthy?" I don't think the CA system is intended to answer that question; it's merely intended to let you know for certain that your communications aren't being intercepted. Furthermore, I don't think it would need to. The encryption system only needs to verify the authenticity of the other party; to determine the trusthworthiness of the other party, things liek resellerratings.com (expanded perhaps to other issues such as privacy and security) can suffice, since the ratings/review system doesn't need to be built into the encryption infrastructure.