The big advantage behind portage is that you custom compile everything from source according to preferences set locally, so you get all the advantages of being able to control compile-time options without actually having to manually compile things. But since fink allows you to compile packages from source too, i wonder how hard it would be to hack something together to allow you to impose the compile-time options that you want using fink?
. ..but it seems to me that in any proper study you make reference to margins of error (which the Yahoo! story didn't mention), and I find it hard to believe that the reported 1% drop falls outside the margin of error.
Forgive me for being obtuse, but how does that make it safer? You still had your car stolen, what if the thief decided to kill you so you couldn't report it? Your response shows this can be used for swifter resolution of a crime already committed, but I thought the general tone was they could use this to prevent crime, and keep criminals off the road.
Well, for one thing, it raises the stakes considerably -- if stealing a car meant killing its owner, I'd imagine that many (most even?) petty car theives wouldn't want a part of it.
My personal sametime address book has 40 or so people that I regularly communicate with at work; 10-50 wouldn't even begin to cut it.
Really? Sounds just about perfect for you. I'm pretty sure that the idea isn't using waste to share info between everyone in an organization, just people within a workgroup. And I'd imagine that most workgroups are under 50 people in size. Anyway, I was replying to a guy who suggested that this would go the way of gnutella -- my point still holds -- this clearly isn't a P2P file sharing protocol in the napster/gnutella/kazaa sense of things.
WASTE is a software product and protocol that enables secure distributed communication for small (on the order of 10-50 nodes) trusted groups of users.
So this isn't really a thing like gnutella. It's an enterprise product. As other posters have noted, it could conceivably be used to share (AOL-TW) copyrighted works, but that doesn't seem to be anywhere near it's main purpose. Heck, AOL is probably releasing the core technology as OSS to get the community to shake it down for bugs, in anticipation of releasing a commercial product built on top of the protocol. Kinda like how Apple has worked on open source technologies like zeroconf, and released commercial products like rendezvous built on the technology.
And also hasen't FreeBSD code turned up in the Linux kernel before?
Grep for "Regents" to find out. Heck, I've heard that if you grep the right MS files (uh, do to with networking I think) for "Regents" you'll hit paydirt as well. And I know that when my Mac boots, there's a "Regents of The University of California. .." copyright notice that comes up. ..
I think a press release where Satan issued a cease-and-decist for defamation of character would have been funnier. I'm sure he would have no problem proving prior ownership. I suppose he could always arrange an IRS audit on Brandon Seipsteg or something. It would be more fun.
Actually, Blizzard sued Satan. The case comes up in July if parties can't settle out of court.
Don't count on/. to do your homework for you. In the first instance, it's better to do your work yourself, and in the second instance, you have to remember: "garbage in, garbage out". Maybe you should seek you an environmental scientist or environmental engineering prof. who does research on the long term environmental impact of computers instead.
Can anyone really take this review seriously?
on
Dancing Barefoot
·
· Score: 3, Funny
. ..those weblog readers who enjoy Wil's humor but don't know the difference between trilithium and tribbles, will find Barefoot irresistable.
I looked at the trailer, and, like a few other people have mentioned here, it's okay but not great. The animation lags behind Pixar and the other big boys, and the plot is pretty generic (and bears an unfortunate similarity to A Bug's Life). But what gets me is that, for what seems to be the umpteenth time, a movie (or t.v. show or book or video or whatever) is anonymously submitted to/., almost certainly by someone involved in the production. If you think about it, considering the zillions of page views daily and the profile of the site (heck, google news uses/. as a source),/. has to be an easy source of free marketing for anyone selling any kind of SF. "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" indeed.
The alky made CHOICES which led to his condition. The girl didnt.
That's simplistic. The alcoholic might have an unknown predisposition to liver failure that was exacerbated by his drinking. In that case, the liver failure isn't a direct consequence of the drinking, it's a consequence of a genetic predisposition. Or perhaps he's predisposed to alcoholism; then you might say that his alcoholism is the consequnce of a predisposition that the guy didn't choose. But I think we'd both agree that those examples are kinda silly. I'm not saying that people shouldn't deal with the consequences of their choices; I'm just saying that it isn't the place of medicine to impose those consequences on people.
When you blow your liver apart from drinking too much you fundamentaly rank lower on the transplant list than the 8 year old girl down the hall suffering from a bizarre liver failure.
Why? Because the girl's life is somehow more valuable than the alcoholic's? Because the alcoholic is somehow more deserving of his fate than the girl? Because she deserves the liver more? I don't think I'm qualified to make decisions about whose life is more worth saving, or whose is in some sense more deserving of lifesaving treatment. There is an uncomfortable moral calculus about the distribution of scarce goods, and we might appeal to it in this case to say that it's more useful to give the liver to the patient with a better chance of surviving, that is, the girl, but that's what it should come down to.
Disease isn't a punishment for bad behaviour, and the role of medicine is do aid the suffering, not to pass judgment on their lifestyle.
Discrimination against someone that gets a natural cancer ( is there such a thing ? ) is one thing, but discrimination against someone who drinks like a fish and smokes a pack a day is something else entirely
I don't know where to even begin with this. First of all, the dichotomy between "natural" vs. "unnatural" cancer is bizarre and incorrect. There are literally thousands of factors that influence whether someone gets cancer or not, from heredity to environmental factors to lifestyle. Should the non-smoker waitress who worked 30 years in the smoking section of a restaurant be discriminated against because her cancer isn't "natural"? And moreover, the context of the grandparent makes it even more repugnant to suggest that discrimination against cancer sufferers is a good thing. He was talking about health insurance and housing for goodness sake. Cancer patients are people in need, and lung cancer patients are in desperate (and usually immediate) need. To somehow try to apply some value judgment to their suffering is just sick. To suggest it's okay to discriminate against smokers with cancer is tantamount to saying that they deserve their illness. And honestly, nobody deserves cancer. How arrogant would you have to be to suggest otherwise?
because at the time Windows98 came out, Linux wasnt as easy to use, there was no transgaming, wine didnt work this well, there was no crossover office, open office, etc,
We're not talking about when 98 came out, we're talking about when XP came out; when XP came out (fall 2001) Sun was giving StarOffice away for free-as-in-beer, Codeweavers had at least released the crossover plug-in, and Loki was porting some games.
As things are right now though, Longhorn seems to be starting from scratch in terms of compatibility, games most likely wont work, so people have the option of keeping XP, or getting linux.
There's no way that MS isn't going to include some sort of at least minimal support for old versions of Windows. Heck, you can still run DOS programs on XP (sometimes kinda). If I had to bet which of Wine or Longhorn would do a better job running pre-Longhorn Windows apps, my money would be on MS.
People are more likely to upgrade to Linux over Longhorn because of price, people might not want to pay all that money to upgrade again and again.
Well, by and large, for desktop users, this hasn't been borne out by past experience. When XP came out, most users didn't decide to switch to a free OS, despite having to pay for an upgrade and facing the specter of future upgrades. It seems to me that in most cases, for whatever reason, desktop users are willing to pay for a familiar, commercial operating system.
And one other thing: it seems to me you're putting a lot of emphasis on gaming, but notwithstanding a subset of the/. crowd, games aren't the primary purpose for people buying PC's. For professionals, productivity and ease-of-use are the paramount concerns, not availability of games. And besides, that's what consoles are for. Also, make sure you have the chicken and the egg in the right order: gaming options may have some influence on marketshare, but (ask Mac users about this) marketshare certainly influences game developers. So unless Linux makes significant inroads in the next few years on its own, Windows will still be the primary platform for PC gaming.
All it will take for Linux to take over the desktop, is to advertise, Longhorn I hear wont be 100 percent compatible with XP just like XP isnt 100 percent compatible with 98, this gives Linux an edge in terms of software compatibility, at least for alittle while.
Not really. Longhorn will still be a hell of a lot more compatible with XP than Linux will be. Heck, by your logic, linux should have been able to jump in between XP and 98 because of similar compatibility issues. It's safe to say that didn't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
A few important replies:
If you're putting, say, sprite and beer in the same category, you sure are missing an essential difference.
You're forgetting beer.
The big advantage behind portage is that you custom compile everything from source according to preferences set locally, so you get all the advantages of being able to control compile-time options without actually having to manually compile things. But since fink allows you to compile packages from source too, i wonder how hard it would be to hack something together to allow you to impose the compile-time options that you want using fink?
. . .but it seems to me that in any proper study you make reference to margins of error (which the Yahoo! story didn't mention), and I find it hard to believe that the reported 1% drop falls outside the margin of error.
This is all really silly.
Just to be extra pedantic. . .
The cross product is in fact only defined for pairs of (real, i think) 3-vectors.Well, for one thing, it raises the stakes considerably -- if stealing a car meant killing its owner, I'd imagine that many (most even?) petty car theives wouldn't want a part of it.
Really? Sounds just about perfect for you. I'm pretty sure that the idea isn't using waste to share info between everyone in an organization, just people within a workgroup. And I'd imagine that most workgroups are under 50 people in size. Anyway, I was replying to a guy who suggested that this would go the way of gnutella -- my point still holds -- this clearly isn't a P2P file sharing protocol in the napster/gnutella/kazaa sense of things.
+4 RTFA! more like it.
And I blockquote:
So this isn't really a thing like gnutella. It's an enterprise product. As other posters have noted, it could conceivably be used to share (AOL-TW) copyrighted works, but that doesn't seem to be anywhere near it's main purpose. Heck, AOL is probably releasing the core technology as OSS to get the community to shake it down for bugs, in anticipation of releasing a commercial product built on top of the protocol. Kinda like how Apple has worked on open source technologies like zeroconf, and released commercial products like rendezvous built on the technology.SBCatacombs struck by massive DDoS attack. Shadowy band of crackers known only as "/." suspected. Law enforcement has been called in.
this may be of interest
Grep for "Regents" to find out. Heck, I've heard that if you grep the right MS files (uh, do to with networking I think) for "Regents" you'll hit paydirt as well. And I know that when my Mac boots, there's a "Regents of The University of California. . ." copyright notice that comes up. . .
oh yeah, would you happen to be this guy by any chance?
asshat.
And I'm glad that the ssl fix came in. But does anyone know if that nasty memory leak is fixed too?
Actually, Blizzard sued Satan. The case comes up in July if parties can't settle out of court.
Let's help these guys out by /.'ing their co-ordinating page!
Don't count on /. to do your homework for you. In the first instance, it's better to do your work yourself, and in the second instance, you have to remember: "garbage in, garbage out". Maybe you should seek you an environmental scientist or environmental engineering prof. who does research on the long term environmental impact of computers instead.
Yeah, both of them.
I looked at the trailer, and, like a few other people have mentioned here, it's okay but not great. The animation lags behind Pixar and the other big boys, and the plot is pretty generic (and bears an unfortunate similarity to A Bug's Life). But what gets me is that, for what seems to be the umpteenth time, a movie (or t.v. show or book or video or whatever) is anonymously submitted to /., almost certainly by someone involved in the production. If you think about it, considering the zillions of page views daily and the profile of the site (heck, google news uses /. as a source), /. has to be an easy source of free marketing for anyone selling any kind of SF. "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" indeed.
Dude, are you sure it was a feminist, and not some troll looking for, uh, exactly the response that you gave?
As they said back in the day, YHBT YHL HAND.
I'll bite. . .
That's simplistic. The alcoholic might have an unknown predisposition to liver failure that was exacerbated by his drinking. In that case, the liver failure isn't a direct consequence of the drinking, it's a consequence of a genetic predisposition. Or perhaps he's predisposed to alcoholism; then you might say that his alcoholism is the consequnce of a predisposition that the guy didn't choose. But I think we'd both agree that those examples are kinda silly. I'm not saying that people shouldn't deal with the consequences of their choices; I'm just saying that it isn't the place of medicine to impose those consequences on people.
Why? Because the girl's life is somehow more valuable than the alcoholic's? Because the alcoholic is somehow more deserving of his fate than the girl? Because she deserves the liver more? I don't think I'm qualified to make decisions about whose life is more worth saving, or whose is in some sense more deserving of lifesaving treatment. There is an uncomfortable moral calculus about the distribution of scarce goods, and we might appeal to it in this case to say that it's more useful to give the liver to the patient with a better chance of surviving, that is, the girl, but that's what it should come down to.
Disease isn't a punishment for bad behaviour, and the role of medicine is do aid the suffering, not to pass judgment on their lifestyle.
I don't know where to even begin with this. First of all, the dichotomy between "natural" vs. "unnatural" cancer is bizarre and incorrect. There are literally thousands of factors that influence whether someone gets cancer or not, from heredity to environmental factors to lifestyle. Should the non-smoker waitress who worked 30 years in the smoking section of a restaurant be discriminated against because her cancer isn't "natural"? And moreover, the context of the grandparent makes it even more repugnant to suggest that discrimination against cancer sufferers is a good thing. He was talking about health insurance and housing for goodness sake. Cancer patients are people in need, and lung cancer patients are in desperate (and usually immediate) need. To somehow try to apply some value judgment to their suffering is just sick. To suggest it's okay to discriminate against smokers with cancer is tantamount to saying that they deserve their illness. And honestly, nobody deserves cancer. How arrogant would you have to be to suggest otherwise?
We're not talking about when 98 came out, we're talking about when XP came out; when XP came out (fall 2001) Sun was giving StarOffice away for free-as-in-beer, Codeweavers had at least released the crossover plug-in, and Loki was porting some games.
There's no way that MS isn't going to include some sort of at least minimal support for old versions of Windows. Heck, you can still run DOS programs on XP (sometimes kinda). If I had to bet which of Wine or Longhorn would do a better job running pre-Longhorn Windows apps, my money would be on MS.Well, by and large, for desktop users, this hasn't been borne out by past experience. When XP came out, most users didn't decide to switch to a free OS, despite having to pay for an upgrade and facing the specter of future upgrades. It seems to me that in most cases, for whatever reason, desktop users are willing to pay for a familiar, commercial operating system.
And one other thing: it seems to me you're putting a lot of emphasis on gaming, but notwithstanding a subset of the /. crowd, games aren't the primary purpose for people buying PC's. For professionals, productivity and ease-of-use are the paramount concerns, not availability of games. And besides, that's what consoles are for. Also, make sure you have the chicken and the egg in the right order: gaming options may have some influence on marketshare, but (ask Mac users about this) marketshare certainly influences game developers. So unless Linux makes significant inroads in the next few years on its own, Windows will still be the primary platform for PC gaming.
Not really. Longhorn will still be a hell of a lot more compatible with XP than Linux will be. Heck, by your logic, linux should have been able to jump in between XP and 98 because of similar compatibility issues. It's safe to say that didn't happen.