Python 2.x isn't going anywhere, for exactly the reasons you bring up.
which is the whole point of open source isn't it. 2.x will always be "free" and you can choose. a friend told me once that his firm did custom NT server (don't know or remember the specifics of the thing) install with their software (this was a long time back) and the firm pre-bought tons of NT licenses since they knew NT would be replaced and they wouldn't be able to get it anymore. that'll never happen with FOSS. and, that's the beauty of the free (beer and speech) market, if the product isn't to your liking, you get a new one that is more so.
I wrote a LAMP app for my school, a simple tardy slip program. since I had older versions of A(1.3)M(3.x)P(4.x) on my ibook to develop on, and all we had were PC's at school, I downloaded an older version of fedora (I think) with the older versions. since everything copied over easily, install/set up was no problem. it's been up and running for a year and a half. could I do it with 2.x, 5.x, 5.x? sure, but I am not in the mood to rewrite.
Shrub is an authentic war coward (daddy may have been near danger but Bush wasn't even present for his entire term of service)
actually, Bush I was a WW2 pilot. he flew a TBF bomber on some very dangerous missions over Japanese occupied islands, and was shot down. in fact, one (perhaps both, I don't recall) of his crew was killed on the mission. and when he splashed down, he was in japanese controlled waters and was in very real danger of being captured, tortured and killed. I'd say he was more than "near" danger.
the difference between between W and Kerry was this: kerry made his wartime service an issue. period. he made it an issue as to his leadership, judgement, etc. and, it wasn't his service, but his anti-war activities that so angered his fellow veterans.
I'm not a fan of W: his record spending, amnesty, and federalization of damn near everything, plus his gross mismanagement of the Iraq campaign (notice I didn't say Iraq war, which would be like saying the African War or the French War when talking about WW2. there was an African campaign, a Western Campaign, etc. Iraq is one campaign in a very long war we've been in for many many years.). however, he did not make his service an issue in 2000 or 2004.
Please, lets stop perverting universities for the industry
I used to teach the AP comp sci class at my high school, but it's been dropped due to lack of interest. If you think industry has skewed what the universities are doing, you ought to see how the unis have skewed what we are doing. My school boasts that we have something like 80-90% of students graduating with A-G (A-G is the list of requirements to go to a UC or CSU, California public universities) complete. We send like 25% of our graduating seniors to a 4 year yet prepare almost all of them? This basically ensures that foreign language, which is technically an "elective" is a required course. And the list goes on...
That the unis have become almost vassals to industry mirrors that high schools have become vassals to the unis.
A very funny answer for sure, but it is a simple economics question. not how much do we pay X, but rather how do we get people to put higher value on X's services (sorry, I teach econ.) or more importantly, how to get them to opportunity cost of data loss. My school has a job shadowing program. I like to tell my students that they should not shadow jobs they might want, but rather spend time at McDonalds shadowing a burger flipper. That way, they will learn the cost of not not getting a good education. sometimes, most times, we don't really know the value (really the opportunity cost, that which we give up) of something.
I'd gather that most people who pay $15/hour for tech service have never had a major data/security failure. $350/hr tech service is cheap if your data is worth that much. I'd guess that even for most people, this holds true, though they don't realize it. when they do, it'll be to late!!
you got your references wrong. thought crime was orwellian, not fascist. but for more thought crime, visit any college campus and proclaim that you believe marriage to be between one man and one woman.
I don't disagree. In fact, I do think that technology can lead to much healthier lives. I would love to see us leave the fossil fuel based economy and develop things like nuclear. And if you look at recent developments in coal, technology has made it much cleaner, and I believe cheaper too. as for the ascetic part, gore and his cohort travel around in private jets. edwards has his mansions and SUV's. etc. it's really no different than a senator who rails against homosexuals cruising in an airport bathroom. they're hypocrites. they don't believe what they preach for the rest of us. so in some sense, yes, they should be "role models".
well, you got the problem 110% exactly right: government funding. global warming became a problem once there was (taxpayer funded) research money aplenty. plus, when you consider the real motives behind all this crap, it's simply about how to control peoples' lives. enviros are just another radical religious group. be they fundamentalist christians or tree worshippers, they fancy themselves Plato's enlightened guardians. if they really cared about the environment, they'd lead by example and live ascetic lives.
If I work at a university and do research there, they pay the costs, etc., then does my research belong to me? It's my understanding that PhD dissertations belong to the university. And, does the same hold true at companies as well? If they are footing the bill, then do you really "own" it?
I am certainly not a lawyer, but it seems to me at least that if you do independent research, then it belongs to you. I guess the same holds true for code as well. How many profs had to sign NDA's or other copyright arrangements. Certainly, some research requires enormous capital investment and can't be conducted independently.
set up a pretty decent single computer (running linux of course) and hook several terminals to it. have them either boot up like LTSP or do a small install and get X remotely. they could log in and you can set up what apps they have access to. if they aren'[t computer literate, they won't know firefox on linux from firefox on XP. and it's a bit safer, I'd wager.
or, remoce (or just unplug) the hard drives and give them boto cd's like ubuntu. or just leve the cd's in the drive. you can make a custom ubuntu cd which has only basic browsing, plus can already be set up for proxies, etc.
either way, it's gonna be hard to mess up the system. that's my $0.02. more work up front, far less down the road.
silly problem but I had written a small java app to create thumbnails from images for the wife's photo website. the resizing made the thumbs look poor compared to Apple's ImageEvents. had to google an applescript to accomplish the thing. hopefully the image quality has gotten better. all I was doing was taking a 400x400 or so jpg and reducing it by 50%. nothing else. and they turned out either blurry or lost sharpness, etc. ImageEvents does the job alot better.
when I taught AP Comp Sci we did some graphics projects and yes, the 2D stuff is really cool. but I don't know whether java is ready for higher end stuff or even decent quality yet. hope it is, that'd be really nice.
not that I'm a tin foil hat guy, but what if oracle paid someone in SAP to hack the site, opened up the hole for the purpose, and then let the whole thing go down? what's a few mil when then there's billions to grab.
what movie was david geffen in? sure they give to both, but (vast) majority of hollywood money goes to the democrats. I was just expressing that I doubt democrats would be any more DRM friendly. they want to bring back the "fairness doctorine" and didn't seem to oppose mccain-feingold. it does seem that all political sentiments devolves to iraq, and we act almost shocked that they would disagree with any other position. most democratic nominees were very supportive of iraq until it went downhill. now they're all opposed, etc. you'd expect anything different on drm?
Either way, the choice of software on the website is highly unlikely to have any bearing at all on what the candidates think about copyright. It might have more to do with how much money the individual candidates have set aside for IT infrastructure.
considering the hollywood money in the democratic party, I'd gather they are hardly going to friendly on OSS and DRM/copyright issues. not that the republicans are any better or worse. doubt they even have a clue about most of what they propose. I'm sure all they're websites are done by professional designers and they farm it out to whomever they think best. it's probably more a matter of who knows who, etc., what company is in my district, whatever.
the previous administration, every foreign intelligence agency, the UN. two senate committees and one british. even afterwards, the dulefer report. there was alot we didn't know, and alot we got wrong. but lies? hardly.
a truther is someone who believes that the "truth" of 9/11 was it was a US government attack.
accepting blindly that the war was a lie, that's faith. now, I think that Iraq war (which began in 1990 btw, not 2003) was something that we either had to finish or leave compeletely. the 10 year interbellum was not working, we had large numbers of troops in the gulf (see ubl's compalints), the sanctions were going to end, and after 9/11, the saddam option was no longer viable.
and yes there were saddam/al qaeda links.
so, given what we knew, what the situation was, and what was going to be the situation in the very near future, there was really no other option. maybe there were other options, but nobody was presenting any. that doesn't mean that we've done a good job. quite the opposite. we've made numerous mistakes and perhaps there's still time to pull it off, though I'm less positive than I was a couple of years ago.
the whole lying and fake enemy thing. already been disproven a dozen times. I'd wager you are a truther too. what amazes me most about the left (and I'm a libertarian, and am disgusted with both parties) is how much they hate religion yet are willing to accept so much purely on faith. it's their version of creationism. oh well, ya gotta believe in somethin
yeah, I remember a Republican party that once believed in balanced budgets, limited government, and federalism. now they believe everything comes from washington. W might be many things, but conservative is absolutely NOT one of them. he was referred to by someone as being a christian socialist. probably the most accurate description I've heard. the Goldwater/Reagan party is dead.
I have one in my mall. I think the thing is that they let you tough and feel and play (guess they gotta clean the keyboards) but you order it there and dell ships it to you. so it seems to be a halfway choice. I don't think you walk out that day with a laptop. of course, I asked the guy about getting it preinstalled with linux. um, nevermind...
I'm not a republican and no, they don't believe in small government. they believe, exactly like the democrats, in much larger federal government. they might want it to do some things differently, but the source of power is essentially the same.
it is a quantum leap from corporations taking over to fascism. and in fact, the robber barons of the gilded age were aided by the government, which akin to Henry VIII granting royal charters, effectively did the same regarding railroads, oil, etc. and no more staunch a libertarian the milton friedman argued for government to break up monopolies. your slippery slope argument fails especially when you consider technology today. for instance, major media is being killed by the independent journalist and blogger. and truth be told, linux and the internet have changed microsoft's business model, far more than a government lawsuit.
and by the way, in the US in the 1930's, the exact opposite happened. being opposed to smaller government because "the corporations will take over and lead to fascism" is about the same as saying "if we allow people to surf the internet, they'll be widespread child porn" so we need a powerful central government and strict censorship of the internet.
on a side note, I teach gov't and history. nothing in the patriot act was "new", only extended to anti-terrorism. see, nobody on the left was complaining when the clinton administration used the RICO statutes (for combatting organized crime) to target anti-abortion groups. they did the exact same things this administration is doing. however, you give the government the power, they are going to use it. and if they use it in a way you don't like, well, they have the power to use it as they see fit. consider the mccain-feingold act, something the courts shockingly upheld. no libertarian would ever support such a bill, but it was bi-partisan. and that is far more fascist than anything.
By libertarian, you mean fascist, right? No regulation at all, companies free to do whatever the hell they want... The good old days of robber-barons, and the world in a tremendous economic depression.
so let me see, fascists believe in total state control, libertarians believe in individual freedom and limited government. fascists believe the state is supreme, libertarians believe individuals are. so libertarians are fascist. that makes sense. I guess it's easier to call someone a fascist when you don't what the hell you're talking about then actually come up with a half-way intelligent response.
bnetween the two parties. unless it's the Iraq war (which many democrats voted for by the way), name one substantial difference between the two parties. they both favor unlimited immigration, destructive trade policies, won't push to expand more oil drilling and nuclear power, don't give a crap about the social security/medicare atom bombs, and in general are so beholden to large monied interests. the republicans screwed up the war on terror, the democrats won't even fight it. other than that, they are more concerned with consolidating political power.
as for the media, et al., all those hollywood big wigs (like David Geffen), who love the RIAA. they are all HUGE democratic donors. connection? I guess not.
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote a LAMP app for my school, a simple tardy slip program. since I had older versions of A(1.3)M(3.x)P(4.x) on my ibook to develop on, and all we had were PC's at school, I downloaded an older version of fedora (I think) with the older versions. since everything copied over easily, install/set up was no problem. it's been up and running for a year and a half. could I do it with 2.x, 5.x, 5.x? sure, but I am not in the mood to rewrite.
the difference between between W and Kerry was this: kerry made his wartime service an issue. period. he made it an issue as to his leadership, judgement, etc. and, it wasn't his service, but his anti-war activities that so angered his fellow veterans.
I'm not a fan of W: his record spending, amnesty, and federalization of damn near everything, plus his gross mismanagement of the Iraq campaign (notice I didn't say Iraq war, which would be like saying the African War or the French War when talking about WW2. there was an African campaign, a Western Campaign, etc. Iraq is one campaign in a very long war we've been in for many many years.). however, he did not make his service an issue in 2000 or 2004.
That the unis have become almost vassals to industry mirrors that high schools have become vassals to the unis.
hell, we just need more dilithium crystals
microsoft is collecting and storing the data. holy crap, batman, what next. the joker has plans to take over gotham city?
A very funny answer for sure, but it is a simple economics question. not how much do we pay X, but rather how do we get people to put higher value on X's services (sorry, I teach econ.) or more importantly, how to get them to opportunity cost of data loss. My school has a job shadowing program. I like to tell my students that they should not shadow jobs they might want, but rather spend time at McDonalds shadowing a burger flipper. That way, they will learn the cost of not not getting a good education. sometimes, most times, we don't really know the value (really the opportunity cost, that which we give up) of something.
I'd gather that most people who pay $15/hour for tech service have never had a major data/security failure. $350/hr tech service is cheap if your data is worth that much. I'd guess that even for most people, this holds true, though they don't realize it. when they do, it'll be to late!!
you got your references wrong. thought crime was orwellian, not fascist. but for more thought crime, visit any college campus and proclaim that you believe marriage to be between one man and one woman.
...but you've mistaken me for someone who gives a shit.
Sincerely,
UN
I don't disagree. In fact, I do think that technology can lead to much healthier lives. I would love to see us leave the fossil fuel based economy and develop things like nuclear. And if you look at recent developments in coal, technology has made it much cleaner, and I believe cheaper too. as for the ascetic part, gore and his cohort travel around in private jets. edwards has his mansions and SUV's. etc. it's really no different than a senator who rails against homosexuals cruising in an airport bathroom. they're hypocrites. they don't believe what they preach for the rest of us. so in some sense, yes, they should be "role models".
well, you got the problem 110% exactly right: government funding. global warming became a problem once there was (taxpayer funded) research money aplenty. plus, when you consider the real motives behind all this crap, it's simply about how to control peoples' lives. enviros are just another radical religious group. be they fundamentalist christians or tree worshippers, they fancy themselves Plato's enlightened guardians. if they really cared about the environment, they'd lead by example and live ascetic lives.
If I work at a university and do research there, they pay the costs, etc., then does my research belong to me? It's my understanding that PhD dissertations belong to the university. And, does the same hold true at companies as well? If they are footing the bill, then do you really "own" it?
I am certainly not a lawyer, but it seems to me at least that if you do independent research, then it belongs to you. I guess the same holds true for code as well. How many profs had to sign NDA's or other copyright arrangements. Certainly, some research requires enormous capital investment and can't be conducted independently.
I know, gonna get ripped, but what the hell...
set up a pretty decent single computer (running linux of course) and hook several terminals to it. have them either boot up like LTSP or do a small install and get X remotely. they could log in and you can set up what apps they have access to. if they aren'[t computer literate, they won't know firefox on linux from firefox on XP. and it's a bit safer, I'd wager.
or, remoce (or just unplug) the hard drives and give them boto cd's like ubuntu. or just leve the cd's in the drive. you can make a custom ubuntu cd which has only basic browsing, plus can already be set up for proxies, etc.
either way, it's gonna be hard to mess up the system. that's my $0.02. more work up front, far less down the road.
silly problem but I had written a small java app to create thumbnails from images for the wife's photo website. the resizing made the thumbs look poor compared to Apple's ImageEvents. had to google an applescript to accomplish the thing. hopefully the image quality has gotten better. all I was doing was taking a 400x400 or so jpg and reducing it by 50%. nothing else. and they turned out either blurry or lost sharpness, etc. ImageEvents does the job alot better.
when I taught AP Comp Sci we did some graphics projects and yes, the 2D stuff is really cool. but I don't know whether java is ready for higher end stuff or even decent quality yet. hope it is, that'd be really nice.
not that I'm a tin foil hat guy, but what if oracle paid someone in SAP to hack the site, opened up the hole for the purpose, and then let the whole thing go down? what's a few mil when then there's billions to grab.
what movie was david geffen in? sure they give to both, but (vast) majority of hollywood money goes to the democrats. I was just expressing that I doubt democrats would be any more DRM friendly. they want to bring back the "fairness doctorine" and didn't seem to oppose mccain-feingold. it does seem that all political sentiments devolves to iraq, and we act almost shocked that they would disagree with any other position. most democratic nominees were very supportive of iraq until it went downhill. now they're all opposed, etc. you'd expect anything different on drm?
considering the hollywood money in the democratic party, I'd gather they are hardly going to friendly on OSS and DRM/copyright issues. not that the republicans are any better or worse. doubt they even have a clue about most of what they propose. I'm sure all they're websites are done by professional designers and they farm it out to whomever they think best. it's probably more a matter of who knows who, etc., what company is in my district, whatever.
the previous administration, every foreign intelligence agency, the UN. two senate committees and one british. even afterwards, the dulefer report. there was alot we didn't know, and alot we got wrong. but lies? hardly.
a truther is someone who believes that the "truth" of 9/11 was it was a US government attack.
accepting blindly that the war was a lie, that's faith. now, I think that Iraq war (which began in 1990 btw, not 2003) was something that we either had to finish or leave compeletely. the 10 year interbellum was not working, we had large numbers of troops in the gulf (see ubl's compalints), the sanctions were going to end, and after 9/11, the saddam option was no longer viable.
and yes there were saddam/al qaeda links.
so, given what we knew, what the situation was, and what was going to be the situation in the very near future, there was really no other option. maybe there were other options, but nobody was presenting any. that doesn't mean that we've done a good job. quite the opposite. we've made numerous mistakes and perhaps there's still time to pull it off, though I'm less positive than I was a couple of years ago.
the whole lying and fake enemy thing. already been disproven a dozen times. I'd wager you are a truther too. what amazes me most about the left (and I'm a libertarian, and am disgusted with both parties) is how much they hate religion yet are willing to accept so much purely on faith. it's their version of creationism. oh well, ya gotta believe in somethin
I see someone's been wearing the tin foil hat too long.
yeah, I remember a Republican party that once believed in balanced budgets, limited government, and federalism. now they believe everything comes from washington. W might be many things, but conservative is absolutely NOT one of them. he was referred to by someone as being a christian socialist. probably the most accurate description I've heard. the Goldwater/Reagan party is dead.
I have one in my mall. I think the thing is that they let you tough and feel and play (guess they gotta clean the keyboards) but you order it there and dell ships it to you. so it seems to be a halfway choice. I don't think you walk out that day with a laptop. of course, I asked the guy about getting it preinstalled with linux. um, nevermind...
soviet russia
all your base
natalie portman
I'm not a republican and no, they don't believe in small government. they believe, exactly like the democrats, in much larger federal government. they might want it to do some things differently, but the source of power is essentially the same.
it is a quantum leap from corporations taking over to fascism. and in fact, the robber barons of the gilded age were aided by the government, which akin to Henry VIII granting royal charters, effectively did the same regarding railroads, oil, etc. and no more staunch a libertarian the milton friedman argued for government to break up monopolies. your slippery slope argument fails especially when you consider technology today. for instance, major media is being killed by the independent journalist and blogger. and truth be told, linux and the internet have changed microsoft's business model, far more than a government lawsuit.
and by the way, in the US in the 1930's, the exact opposite happened. being opposed to smaller government because "the corporations will take over and lead to fascism" is about the same as saying "if we allow people to surf the internet, they'll be widespread child porn" so we need a powerful central government and strict censorship of the internet.
on a side note, I teach gov't and history. nothing in the patriot act was "new", only extended to anti-terrorism. see, nobody on the left was complaining when the clinton administration used the RICO statutes (for combatting organized crime) to target anti-abortion groups. they did the exact same things this administration is doing. however, you give the government the power, they are going to use it. and if they use it in a way you don't like, well, they have the power to use it as they see fit. consider the mccain-feingold act, something the courts shockingly upheld. no libertarian would ever support such a bill, but it was bi-partisan. and that is far more fascist than anything.
so let me see, fascists believe in total state control, libertarians believe in individual freedom and limited government. fascists believe the state is supreme, libertarians believe individuals are. so libertarians are fascist. that makes sense. I guess it's easier to call someone a fascist when you don't what the hell you're talking about then actually come up with a half-way intelligent response.
bnetween the two parties. unless it's the Iraq war (which many democrats voted for by the way), name one substantial difference between the two parties. they both favor unlimited immigration, destructive trade policies, won't push to expand more oil drilling and nuclear power, don't give a crap about the social security/medicare atom bombs, and in general are so beholden to large monied interests. the republicans screwed up the war on terror, the democrats won't even fight it. other than that, they are more concerned with consolidating political power.
as for the media, et al., all those hollywood big wigs (like David Geffen), who love the RIAA. they are all HUGE democratic donors. connection? I guess not.
vote libertarian!!