But the GP was more focused on Nokia. That's probably because history shows that MS partneships end badly for only one partner, but that one is never Microsoft.
Nobody produces "Complex Instruction Set Computers", or "Reduced Instruction Set Computers" anymore. Instead, all the other CISC architectures died, while the x86 turned into an "Absurdely Complex Instruction Set Computer", that require an entire computer (RISC) as a fetcher. Also, the old RISC architectures turned into some "Simple and Large Instruction Set Computers", that exchange some more bits on the instructions for being as powerfull as the old CISC. Yet being simple they don't need as many transistors, what is good news for price and power consuption.
It doesn't really mater. That is why no vendor cares.
If you want a service to be really reliable, you'll do some kind of hight availability setup, and rebooting will take too long just to synchronize with the cluster again.
If you don't want a service to be really reliable, well, why do you care so much about boot time?
And why would you want ":wq!"? I can think why one would want ":wq", and why one would want ":q!", but ":wq!" eludes me. Also, what is the correct behaviour when something fails? I can't think on anything I'd qualify as "correct".
The idea is that Dell would use the new ability to design everything on their systems to reduce the cost of manufacturing, thus not losing 1.3 bilion a year.
I doubt they can do that, but hey, who am I? I don't see value even on the Nokia sellout for Microsoft.
Why I am wrong? I think the colapse must be simultaneous at least from the point of view of both parties performing the measurement.
Let's put it on the point of view of one party (call him A, and the other B). If it wasn't simultaneous, either it collapsed first for A or for B. If it collapsed first for A, there is a finite amount of time when B could measure it and still get some result that is orthogonal from what A got. If it collapsed first for B, there is a finite amount of time when A could measure it and get a resolt orthogonal from B's. So, from the point of view of A, it is simultaneous. Now, the labels are perfectly symetric, so we can exchange A for B at will. Consequently, from the point of view of B, it is also simultaneous.
Ok, making it simultaneous on two arbitrary (the measurement could, in theory, be performed at any relative speed) reference frames may be a weaker proposition as making it simultaneous on all reference frames, but I fail to see how. And I know General Relativity says it is impossible, as Lorentz's transformations are violated (and thanks for the proof). That is what makes it interesting.
Wow, you must have a pretty big warehouse! While I'm concerned about digitalizing everything, put those.iso in HDs, and making the big versions of them go away, you are advocating more paper and disks.
What do you have against symlinks? You just create 2 dirs anywhere, and put those applications writting on those dirs. Then, when you decide to change again, you just make a couple more of dirs, like the "Desktop/Desktop/Desktop/.../Desktop/old_trash" hierarchy people pointed over and onver on this thread. It beats not changing at all.
Now, seriously, just change the name of the folders and you'll probably see that most of the programs that use them you don't use anymore. Those few that you do still use, reconfigure. It is not that big a deal (Windows users do it all the time, why can't you once?), and beats not being able to organize your things.
That's good. With a box of 10 colored floppiess, with 10 colored labels you have enough combinations for 100 disks. I've never used more than 100 floppies...
When I craeted my current backup procedure I figured up that backing up things while I reindex them was a big thoublemaker. Consequently, now I have an "attic" directory too, but I call it "temp". There goes eveything that will still change name or location, and won't be backed-up until that happens. Now I have so much thing there that I fear missing it, so maybe I should make some backup, but without keeping history.
About all that buzz about tags, I say: To the Hell with tags! It is hard enough to give names and put the files at the correct directory, are OS writters realy expecting me to also tag the files?
So, that is the deal? MS hired Nokia as a marketing departament? If Nokia is smart, they'll be able to continue producing phones with the other OSs. Well, at least they didn't contract the spread of FUD, like Novell; FOSS people can continue liking Nokia.
Correction, what you said implies that it must colapse simultaneously in all frames. I'm not sure (no proofs) that violates the Lorentz's transformations, neither if they could be refined to make it not so, but it seems to violate.
Interesting, I've never tought about quantum entanglement from the simultaniety point of view. It poses some other problems.
Yes, if General Relativity holds, if you can have FTL in any way, you can also solve NP-complete problems in polytime, do time travels and reverse the second law of thermodynamics. That is not an exclusivity of nonlinear quantum mechanics.
Quantum entanglement isn't FTL, but it makes the Universe either non-local, non-real or non-causal (or alternatively, one of QM or GR is wrong). So, something we do think that is just isn't, but we don't know what, and what new knowledge will come when we discover it.
Tough choice. If Linux can't run any application people care about, and Windows fails to run any application people care about, I guess people'll have to just use Solaris.
So, now they are governed by real free market entusiasts?
Now, seriously, the military took the government the day they stood between the people and the government goons, and stopped the violence. Now we'll see if they are really on the people's side.
People at PlanetKDE are recommending to let the dust settle. I happen to agree with them, nobody knows what will really happen with QT, it is too early to fork it.
Slashdot Mirror
It is pragmatic, since it will actualy work and help making DRM go away. Buying DRMed books will help perpetuate DRM.
And the obligatory:
- 2011 is the year of Linux on the desktop.
But the GP was more focused on Nokia. That's probably because history shows that MS partneships end badly for only one partner, but that one is never Microsoft.
Because anybody can make an ARM processor, but one needs a lot of work to replace an x86 processor.
Nobody produces "Complex Instruction Set Computers", or "Reduced Instruction Set Computers" anymore. Instead, all the other CISC architectures died, while the x86 turned into an "Absurdely Complex Instruction Set Computer", that require an entire computer (RISC) as a fetcher. Also, the old RISC architectures turned into some "Simple and Large Instruction Set Computers", that exchange some more bits on the instructions for being as powerfull as the old CISC. Yet being simple they don't need as many transistors, what is good news for price and power consuption.
It doesn't really mater. That is why no vendor cares.
If you want a service to be really reliable, you'll do some kind of hight availability setup, and rebooting will take too long just to synchronize with the cluster again.
If you don't want a service to be really reliable, well, why do you care so much about boot time?
And why would you want ":wq!"? I can think why one would want ":wq", and why one would want ":q!", but ":wq!" eludes me. Also, what is the correct behaviour when something fails? I can't think on anything I'd qualify as "correct".
The idea is that Dell would use the new ability to design everything on their systems to reduce the cost of manufacturing, thus not losing 1.3 bilion a year.
I doubt they can do that, but hey, who am I? I don't see value even on the Nokia sellout for Microsoft.
Why I am wrong? I think the colapse must be simultaneous at least from the point of view of both parties performing the measurement.
Let's put it on the point of view of one party (call him A, and the other B). If it wasn't simultaneous, either it collapsed first for A or for B. If it collapsed first for A, there is a finite amount of time when B could measure it and still get some result that is orthogonal from what A got. If it collapsed first for B, there is a finite amount of time when A could measure it and get a resolt orthogonal from B's. So, from the point of view of A, it is simultaneous. Now, the labels are perfectly symetric, so we can exchange A for B at will. Consequently, from the point of view of B, it is also simultaneous.
Ok, making it simultaneous on two arbitrary (the measurement could, in theory, be performed at any relative speed) reference frames may be a weaker proposition as making it simultaneous on all reference frames, but I fail to see how. And I know General Relativity says it is impossible, as Lorentz's transformations are violated (and thanks for the proof). That is what makes it interesting.
Find a bunch of compnaies that depend on QT for a living. Tell them "If you pay us $$$ we'll do feature X".
Alternatively, get a job on those companies.
I agree that shorts are dangerous. Have you looked at puts?
Wow, you must have a pretty big warehouse! While I'm concerned about digitalizing everything, put those .iso in HDs, and making the big versions of them go away, you are advocating more paper and disks.
You are doing it wrong. The infinite monkey theorem only works for really random strings, pseudorandom ones break it.
Hey, Symlinks!
What do you have against symlinks? You just create 2 dirs anywhere, and put those applications writting on those dirs. Then, when you decide to change again, you just make a couple more of dirs, like the "Desktop/Desktop/Desktop/.../Desktop/old_trash" hierarchy people pointed over and onver on this thread. It beats not changing at all.
Now, seriously, just change the name of the folders and you'll probably see that most of the programs that use them you don't use anymore. Those few that you do still use, reconfigure. It is not that big a deal (Windows users do it all the time, why can't you once?), and beats not being able to organize your things.
SMART disks can't even forget.
That's good. With a box of 10 colored floppiess, with 10 colored labels you have enough combinations for 100 disks. I've never used more than 100 floppies...
Altough, nowadays I do use more than 100 DVDs.
Yeah, don't trust anyone, even if the ones says he does no evil.
Religious folk should already have teached that lesson to people, but people never learn, it seems.
When I craeted my current backup procedure I figured up that backing up things while I reindex them was a big thoublemaker. Consequently, now I have an "attic" directory too, but I call it "temp". There goes eveything that will still change name or location, and won't be backed-up until that happens. Now I have so much thing there that I fear missing it, so maybe I should make some backup, but without keeping history.
About all that buzz about tags, I say: To the Hell with tags! It is hard enough to give names and put the files at the correct directory, are OS writters realy expecting me to also tag the files?
So, that is the deal? MS hired Nokia as a marketing departament? If Nokia is smart, they'll be able to continue producing phones with the other OSs. Well, at least they didn't contract the spread of FUD, like Novell; FOSS people can continue liking Nokia.
Correction, what you said implies that it must colapse simultaneously in all frames. I'm not sure (no proofs) that violates the Lorentz's transformations, neither if they could be refined to make it not so, but it seems to violate.
Interesting, I've never tought about quantum entanglement from the simultaniety point of view. It poses some other problems.
Yes, if General Relativity holds, if you can have FTL in any way, you can also solve NP-complete problems in polytime, do time travels and reverse the second law of thermodynamics. That is not an exclusivity of nonlinear quantum mechanics.
Quantum entanglement isn't FTL, but it makes the Universe either non-local, non-real or non-causal (or alternatively, one of QM or GR is wrong). So, something we do think that is just isn't, but we don't know what, and what new knowledge will come when we discover it.
Tough choice. If Linux can't run any application people care about, and Windows fails to run any application people care about, I guess people'll have to just use Solaris.
Quick, buy some Oracle pushes!
So, now they are governed by real free market entusiasts?
Now, seriously, the military took the government the day they stood between the people and the government goons, and stopped the violence. Now we'll see if they are really on the people's side.
Again, how is it good for Nokia?
People at PlanetKDE are recommending to let the dust settle. I happen to agree with them, nobody knows what will really happen with QT, it is too early to fork it.
ISn't QT LGPL now? If so, anybody can use it.