Why would NYT want their content cached AND don't want anyone to actually use the cached page? Waht's the point of such a cached copy -- beside wasting Google's resources?
Compilation v interpretation has nothing to do with it.
True.
Besides virtually nothing is "compiled into assembly language" these days.
No. Anything in C/C++ is compiled into assembly language. You may never see it because you are normally not interested in. But the assembly phase still do exist and you can tell the silly thing to actually output the assembly code. And all C/C++ programs together are not "virtually nothing".
Configuring keys in Linux isn't much fun, in my opinion. The files are obscure, things are handled differently in X than they are at the console, and different users can't have different keymaps (correct me... please! I'd love to be wrong).
This is probably true, except the last statement. Keymaps in X are local to a given X server, so it's possible to modify them with xmodmap and/or select from predefined set with setxkbmap. And put it into your.xinitrc.
You should let mysql use only unix sockets at the first place, when you don't want connections from outside (skip-networking in [mysqld] section). Then it won't listen on TCP at all, but will be still accessible on localhost.
It's much easier to use regexps or associative arrays (just use the right library function), than to cope with complex struct-like and tree-like stuff in Perl -- there's no way how to write the code readably.
That's crap, though. If you read the article, they're basically suing MS because MS won't give them more money.
Of course they will be bankrupt when MS won't give them more money (and it surely won't). But MS will also grab their know-how/IP/... as reward for making them bankrupt, and that's the point.
Of course, you can't claim you created them (no difference from a car). You don't own the copyright. And you won't probably get a big price, because it must be also available freely. But you can take your installation CDs and sell them.
Re:That's because Linux admins are self-taught
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 1
Being self-taught definitely doesn't guarantee one to be a great admin. And courses can give some additional insight or overall view.
But being self-taught means you wanted to learn, and wanted it enough to actually learn something. While having some piece of paper means you wanted to get this piece of paper, and wanted it enough to actually get it.
Why is it that so many people don't understand that a single interface is a powerful thing?
It perhaps is a powerful thing. But current users use different desktops. I won't force anybody to use my Fvwm setup. But I won't change it either. Desktop unification would mean most people would have to start using something else than they use now. Who'd like that? So existing users with their opinions on how thing should be prevent unification. You may send them all to Mars and hire a bunch of BFU who doesn't care to demonstrate unity -- but that's not the point.
The better way is: look at RedHat8. It's far from being perfect, but they try hard to make Gnome and KDE look and feel the same. A BFU can't tell which one is running, so what.
You need exactly the same energy to create the antimatter as you get from the anihilation ("collision" is another nonsense, but let it be...). Unless you are going to mine the antimatter in some some animatter mine...
Have nothing better to do than asking?
on
When Spammers Attack?
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
I know it's Xmas in the Xian world, and s*** happens. People are surfeited and bored.
But isn't five `Ask Slashdot's on the main list a little bit too much?
What's wrong with the packet filter?
on
When Spammers Attack?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Properly set up packet filter should consume negligible amount of CPU. Drop the packets, they don't deserve any ICMP response. Pretend you simply don't exist (for their domain).
Your employment contract says "Do not disclose private company information, do not represent the company in a negative light, do not create a hostile environment for your coworkers"
Representing the company in negative light is not the same as lying, so don't mix them. The copany doesn't want you to tell negative things about it regardless of whether they are true or not, and that's the point. So, your freedom of speech is gone. Of course, you signed the contract voluntarily -- otherwise you'd be still unemployed...
Re:Mirabilis filed the patent
on
AOL Patents IM
·
· Score: 1
Only certain usage of the harvested emails may be bad. I did what can be called e-mail harvesting too and yet I haven't sent a single spam and I'm not going to send any -- I did it for statistical purpose. I don't like being called criminal. Unfortunately this world became legalistic and have lost the sense of good and bad. Intention doesn't matter. Only what's written on some WWW page with an Accept button.
BTW, no one gathers the e-mails manually. When I write an e-mail harvesting bot, it not only doesn't click on any Accept buttons, but have no intention of accepting some conditions at all. And I, its author, don't know what agreements the sites the bot finds may contain. I can only make it obey Internet protocols, robots.txt and so on.
So, is Google illegal too, when it crawls the Web without obeying conditions written on some WWW page with an Accept button?
The purpose of GPL is really to draw a clear line between proprietary and free software. I.e. to assure code won't migrate from one world to the other in no direction.
By the nature of proprietary software, you can't make it free. By being able to take free code and incorporate it in propriatary app (probably with some added value), code would continually move from the free world into the proprietary. In other words, the proprietary codebase would be all code (proprietary + free), while the free codebase will contain the free code only. This would doom free code to become and/or remain marginal.
With a clear separation you now have two basic possibilities: use free code creating more free code and use proprietary creating more proprietary.
If you want to sell your code you can. But you can't sell other's code, and I don't see anything wrong in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would NYT want their content cached AND don't want anyone to actually use the cached page? Waht's the point of such a cached copy -- beside wasting Google's resources?
If this was a philosophical debate, I'd call this a stupid reductionism. But this isn't philosophy, so I'll left out the "reductionism"...
What do you compare with what? There's no equivalent of distro in the Windows world. So what?
If you count all the CDs with third party Windows software necessary to make the silly thing basically usable, you get a few dozens...
Compilation v interpretation has nothing to do with it.
True.
Besides virtually nothing is "compiled into assembly language" these days.
No. Anything in C/C++ is compiled into assembly language. You may never see it because you are normally not interested in. But the assembly phase still do exist and you can tell the silly thing to actually output the assembly code. And all C/C++ programs together are not "virtually nothing".
Hm....
No.
Because it would probably be Visual BS.
BTW C doesn't take forever to develop with, C only takes forever to learn programming elegantly and using the right libraries.
Configuring keys in Linux isn't much fun, in my opinion. The files are obscure, things are handled differently in X than they are at the console, and different users can't have different keymaps (correct me... please! I'd love to be wrong).
.xinitrc.
This is probably true, except the last statement. Keymaps in X are local to a given X server, so it's possible to modify them with xmodmap and/or select from predefined set with setxkbmap. And put it into your
I think the next one is IRIX ;-)
You should let mysql use only unix sockets at the first place, when you don't want connections from outside (skip-networking in [mysqld] section). Then it won't listen on TCP at all, but will be still accessible on localhost.
It's much easier to use regexps or associative arrays (just use the right library function), than to cope with complex struct-like and tree-like stuff in Perl -- there's no way how to write the code readably.
That's crap, though. If you read the article, they're basically suing MS because MS won't give them more money.
Of course they will be bankrupt when MS won't give them more money (and it surely won't). But MS will also grab their know-how/IP/... as reward for making them bankrupt, and that's the point.
Why you can't sell Linux to third parties?
Of course, you can't claim you created them (no difference from a car). You don't own the copyright. And you won't probably get a big price, because it must be also available freely. But you can take your installation CDs and sell them.
Being self-taught definitely doesn't guarantee one to be a great admin. And courses can give some additional insight or overall view.
But being self-taught means you wanted to learn, and wanted it enough to actually learn something. While having some piece of paper means you wanted to get this piece of paper, and wanted it enough to actually get it.
And that's the difference.
Why is it that so many people don't understand that a single interface is a powerful thing?
It perhaps is a powerful thing. But current users use different desktops. I won't force anybody to use my Fvwm setup. But I won't change it either. Desktop unification would mean most people would have to start using something else than they use now. Who'd like that? So existing users with their opinions on how thing should be prevent unification. You may send them all to Mars and hire a bunch of BFU who doesn't care to demonstrate unity -- but that's not the point.
The better way is: look at RedHat8. It's far from being perfect, but they try hard to make Gnome and KDE look and feel the same. A BFU can't tell which one is running, so what.
Why essentially the same post from registered user gets +3 Funny while from Anonymous Coward -1 Troll?
Answer yourself (and don't forget to give this -1 too, of course).
To use gettext (Free Softare, of course).
http://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/
Yes, it's *nix. Doesn't work on Windows. But didn't expect open source programmer to use Windows at the first place.
Nonsense.
You need exactly the same energy to create the antimatter as you get from the anihilation ("collision" is another nonsense, but let it be...). Unless you are going to mine the antimatter in some some animatter mine...
I know it's Xmas in the Xian world, and s*** happens. People are surfeited and bored.
But isn't five `Ask Slashdot's on the main list a little bit too much?
Properly set up packet filter should consume negligible amount of CPU. Drop the packets, they don't deserve any ICMP response. Pretend you simply don't exist (for their domain).
Remove all FSF soft from your Linux system and try to use it before speaking like that -- and you'll see.
Representing the company in negative light is not the same as lying, so don't mix them. The copany doesn't want you to tell negative things about it regardless of whether they are true or not, and that's the point. So, your freedom of speech is gone. Of course, you signed the contract voluntarily -- otherwise you'd be still unemployed...
That's why we have "finger user@machine".
I don't understand Dutch, but...
Only certain usage of the harvested emails may be bad. I did what can be called e-mail harvesting too and yet I haven't sent a single spam and I'm not going to send any -- I did it for statistical purpose. I don't like being called criminal. Unfortunately this world became legalistic and have lost the sense of good and bad. Intention doesn't matter. Only what's written on some WWW page with an Accept button.
BTW, no one gathers the e-mails manually. When I write an e-mail harvesting bot, it not only doesn't click on any Accept buttons, but have no intention of accepting some conditions at all. And I, its author, don't know what agreements the sites the bot finds may contain. I can only make it obey Internet protocols, robots.txt and so on.
So, is Google illegal too, when it crawls the Web without obeying conditions written on some WWW page with an Accept button?
We all know it already, so it's not necessary to report still more and more evidence of that. The question is what we'll do with it.
Moor's law predicts
doubling of transistor density on a manufactured die every year
No matter you (or me) may think about Intel and AMD clock speed battle, it's quite unrelated to it.
The purpose of GPL is really to draw a clear line between proprietary and free software. I.e. to assure code won't migrate from one world to the other in no direction.
By the nature of proprietary software, you can't make it free. By being able to take free code and incorporate it in propriatary app (probably with some added value), code would continually move from the free world into the proprietary. In other words, the proprietary codebase would be all code (proprietary + free), while the free codebase will contain the free code only. This would doom free code to become and/or remain marginal.
With a clear separation you now have two basic possibilities: use free code creating more free code and use proprietary creating more proprietary.
If you want to sell your code you can. But you can't sell other's code, and I don't see anything wrong in it.