"Did he slam it, or did he say that it's fine, just not appropriate for a project as distributed as the kernel?"
I can't tell you what he said now. But he repeteadly said that CVS and Subversion didn't fit the Linux development model, not because it is big, or distributed, just because it is different. And it seems people keep asking him that same question:)
Well, maybe they can reject it on the grounds that there is another licence, proposed by the same entity, that have almost the same name and is as far from Open Source as one can get.
If that is not enough, they can notice that the entity proposing both licences has an historic of misleading the public against Open Source.
This is not a case of confusing group velocity with particle velocity. It is also not a case of quantum entaglement. What happens here is that those people found that tunneling happened instantaneously at their experiment, but they reflected all the tunneled photons back to the original side.
Well, now I'm curious about what would happen if those photons wheren't reflected, and how did they "know" about the other side of the prism if they took no time traveling trought it. Does that count as information moving, and (since the answer I get will be no) why not.?
5) They move.
6) They are slow or make the site not load completely.
Ok, personaly, I won't even notice numbers 2 and 4, but when they disturb the actual content, I'll consider going away or blocking it (on that order).
Also, I generaly like ads. I click on lots of them when I'm, for example, looking where to buy a product. Sometimes they are really usefull, and tend to be even more usefull when they relate to the site's subject. Not Google matching, that is near useless, but when they are manualy chosen by the page author. But I guess that doesn't scale well, so no big corporations are interested...
I don't know if that counts as maturity, but if you ask me some ideological, moral or political question now and when I was 15, you'd probably get a much harder position from the 15 years old me.
If doubting your ideas is "congealing" the mind, I'm already done by 27.
First, replacing DRM with watermarks is a very nice step. It changes those companies position from support a future like Right to Read to merely accusing people on baseless evidence. So, we can stop acting like they want to leat us to an Orwellian society, and just ask for a better judicial system.
Now, watermarking also doesn't work. If it is audible, people won't like it. If it is not audible, it is useless information, what works against compressors and will be removed on every possibility. With time, all watermarks will be removed.
First, as other people already pointed, there are no such things as "international laws".
Now, there is no chance that AllofMp3 owned damages greater than Russian GDP, that is a simple matter if logics. Also, their position were already found legal several times, and the RIAA was claimming that they broke a law that didn't even exist by the time they "broke" it.
"PowerPC and ARM may be easier to decode but they take up a ton more space and that causes a significant decrease in cache and memory efficiency.
Funny you mention cache efficiency, since it is the major drawback of the x86 opcode. Let me ask you how many general porpouse registers do one of those new architecture processors have? 64? 128? And how many they export to the compiler? 4.
That is it, 4. How do expect the compiler to optimize memory access with 4 registers? All the other are used on inside-chip optimizations, but the processor has not the time nor the amount of information the compiler can use to optimize your program.
The fact that x86 computers are that fast is simply awesome. But they needed a huge investiment to get that way, and still spend much more energy than a pure RISC chip for the same performance.
"But implying (as you seem to) that somehow Wikipedia wonks are more trustworthy and less biased than other editors is, well, silly."
"More trustworthy" doesn't foolows from "less biased", nor the other way around. And "more transparency" does very probably lead to "more trustworthy".
"Trustworthy" is a kind of bias, and that is the kind of bias Wikipedia is going after.
Well, panspermia has the argument of time. You pushed stuff a bit too much when you said that it was a 500 milions of years advantaje, because comets and metheors cooled much faster than Earth. In fact, it was more like a 1 to 1.5 bilion of years. That means somewhere from 3 to 10 times the time life would had to develop on Earth.
Also, they don't have to prove that conditions were better at metheors by that time. They only need to prove that conditions were good enough and that life would be able to spread from one rock to the other. Those researchers seem to have advanced on the former, while the latter is quite plausible and don't need exceptional evidence.
Everything being the same, panspermia has the advantage of time, and if we are to belive that life is hard to happen (that could explain the Fermi paradox) time is crucial.
"I'm pretty sure we've already sent probes out to asteroids, but I don't know if they were capable of detecting organic compounds or if they were only looking for water."
Organic compounds are everywhere at the Solar System. It is so easy to detect them at dust released by commets or at surfaces that it doesn't make even news anymore.
"One thing I don't know is if you can, hypothetically, cover your short by buying the very same stock you shorted from the shareholder who wants to sell and is forcing you to cover."
Makes no differnce. Even if they can't do that, they can simply trade the same (small amount of) stock over and over again.
Except deferencing/referencing, all explicit pointer arithmetics is too usafe to not be closed behing a safe API. That doesn't mean the language would be usefull without them, how would you create that library otherwise?
Also, explicit deference/reference is pointer arithmetics, and leads to all those other pointer operations you see on C, after all, pointers are just integers. They must come toghether, and you can't do the things I cited without explicit deference/reference.
And then comes hardware communication, where you often interpred structs as pointer arithmetics (they are semanticaly equivalent too), deal with on place copying, pass pointers around from the CPU to periferics and the other way around...
So, the community is divided on those that made a deal with Microsoft (I'll call those ones "Dead") and those without such deal (I'll call those "Other"). Well, big deal! We have yet another pair of labels to put on each other... And the "Dead" ones won't even stay long enough to make a big number.
Microsoft is trying to divide and conquer the community. The only problem is that we are already divided, and are strong that way. If that was a sucessfull strategy, Microsoft would jump directly to the "conquer" part.
Personaly, I am still amused to Microsoft behaviour... I am waiting them to show their real plan because that one is only enough to gain some time (until they are ready?) not to win.
"It seems like you needed 5 or 6 independent "free" pieces of the pie to make it go, and none of them did the trick."
Wellcome to Free Software. Our developers reuse code, that is why they can beat Microsoft and you can still get their code for free most of the times.
If you were using a system with a modern approach to software instalation, that wouldn't be a problem, but you seem to be using Windows... Well, there is a price you pay for that. After things are installed, they often integrate quite well.
Also, keep in mind that most free video tools use the available OS functionality. So, if you use them on Windows, you'll be locked into the rendering of Windows Media Player, most people don't like that.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't tell you what he said now. But he repeteadly said that CVS and Subversion didn't fit the Linux development model, not because it is big, or distributed, just because it is different. And it seems people keep asking him that same question :)
Well, maybe they can reject it on the grounds that there is another licence, proposed by the same entity, that have almost the same name and is as far from Open Source as one can get.
If that is not enough, they can notice that the entity proposing both licences has an historic of misleading the public against Open Source.
This is not a case of confusing group velocity with particle velocity. It is also not a case of quantum entaglement. What happens here is that those people found that tunneling happened instantaneously at their experiment, but they reflected all the tunneled photons back to the original side.
Well, now I'm curious about what would happen if those photons wheren't reflected, and how did they "know" about the other side of the prism if they took no time traveling trought it. Does that count as information moving, and (since the answer I get will be no) why not.?
Ok, am I the only one that amuses himself on how defeating causality also defeats the second law of thermodinamics?
I can't belive I'll say that, but... To the hell with computing!!!
And you see any quantum mechanics textbook... Or simply find a thread about tunneling to post.
5) They move.
6) They are slow or make the site not load completely.
Ok, personaly, I won't even notice numbers 2 and 4, but when they disturb the actual content, I'll consider going away or blocking it (on that order).
Also, I generaly like ads. I click on lots of them when I'm, for example, looking where to buy a product. Sometimes they are really usefull, and tend to be even more usefull when they relate to the site's subject. Not Google matching, that is near useless, but when they are manualy chosen by the page author. But I guess that doesn't scale well, so no big corporations are interested...
Sounds like someone who doesn't fully grasp the rare Earth argument, but still belives on it.
Ok, rights granted. Put them to good use :)
I don't know if that counts as maturity, but if you ask me some ideological, moral or political question now and when I was 15, you'd probably get a much harder position from the 15 years old me.
If doubting your ideas is "congealing" the mind, I'm already done by 27.
First, replacing DRM with watermarks is a very nice step. It changes those companies position from support a future like Right to Read to merely accusing people on baseless evidence. So, we can stop acting like they want to leat us to an Orwellian society, and just ask for a better judicial system.
Now, watermarking also doesn't work. If it is audible, people won't like it. If it is not audible, it is useless information, what works against compressors and will be removed on every possibility. With time, all watermarks will be removed.
First, as other people already pointed, there are no such things as "international laws".
Now, there is no chance that AllofMp3 owned damages greater than Russian GDP, that is a simple matter if logics. Also, their position were already found legal several times, and the RIAA was claimming that they broke a law that didn't even exist by the time they "broke" it.
Funny you mention cache efficiency, since it is the major drawback of the x86 opcode. Let me ask you how many general porpouse registers do one of those new architecture processors have? 64? 128? And how many they export to the compiler? 4.
That is it, 4. How do expect the compiler to optimize memory access with 4 registers? All the other are used on inside-chip optimizations, but the processor has not the time nor the amount of information the compiler can use to optimize your program.
The fact that x86 computers are that fast is simply awesome. But they needed a huge investiment to get that way, and still spend much more energy than a pure RISC chip for the same performance.
Do you mind if I call Microsoft into that comitee? They are the ones holding x86 alive.
aptitude install openoffice.org
That faster than even downloading OOo from the web or buying (or locating some already bought) CDs.
I don't know if you are in it for a +5 Funny or not. But I truely didn't expect that.
That is also a very big lesson on diplomacy from this judge. He dismissed an absurd claim while still not annoying the United States.
That will be HOT!!
"More trustworthy" doesn't foolows from "less biased", nor the other way around. And "more transparency" does very probably lead to "more trustworthy".
"Trustworthy" is a kind of bias, and that is the kind of bias Wikipedia is going after.
Well, panspermia has the argument of time. You pushed stuff a bit too much when you said that it was a 500 milions of years advantaje, because comets and metheors cooled much faster than Earth. In fact, it was more like a 1 to 1.5 bilion of years. That means somewhere from 3 to 10 times the time life would had to develop on Earth.
Also, they don't have to prove that conditions were better at metheors by that time. They only need to prove that conditions were good enough and that life would be able to spread from one rock to the other. Those researchers seem to have advanced on the former, while the latter is quite plausible and don't need exceptional evidence.
Everything being the same, panspermia has the advantage of time, and if we are to belive that life is hard to happen (that could explain the Fermi paradox) time is crucial.
Organic compounds are everywhere at the Solar System. It is so easy to detect them at dust released by commets or at surfaces that it doesn't make even news anymore.
Makes no differnce. Even if they can't do that, they can simply trade the same (small amount of) stock over and over again.
No eletrolitic capacitors, very few and small inductors and a battery, that will be the point of failure of the system.
Ok, now I want one of those.
So, I guess obtaining the two-stroke engine's manual isn't usefull.
Except deferencing/referencing, all explicit pointer arithmetics is too usafe to not be closed behing a safe API. That doesn't mean the language would be usefull without them, how would you create that library otherwise?
Also, explicit deference/reference is pointer arithmetics, and leads to all those other pointer operations you see on C, after all, pointers are just integers. They must come toghether, and you can't do the things I cited without explicit deference/reference.
And then comes hardware communication, where you often interpred structs as pointer arithmetics (they are semanticaly equivalent too), deal with on place copying, pass pointers around from the CPU to periferics and the other way around...
So, the community is divided on those that made a deal with Microsoft (I'll call those ones "Dead") and those without such deal (I'll call those "Other"). Well, big deal! We have yet another pair of labels to put on each other... And the "Dead" ones won't even stay long enough to make a big number.
Microsoft is trying to divide and conquer the community. The only problem is that we are already divided, and are strong that way. If that was a sucessfull strategy, Microsoft would jump directly to the "conquer" part.
Personaly, I am still amused to Microsoft behaviour... I am waiting them to show their real plan because that one is only enough to gain some time (until they are ready?) not to win.
Wellcome to Free Software. Our developers reuse code, that is why they can beat Microsoft and you can still get their code for free most of the times.
If you were using a system with a modern approach to software instalation, that wouldn't be a problem, but you seem to be using Windows... Well, there is a price you pay for that. After things are installed, they often integrate quite well.
Also, keep in mind that most free video tools use the available OS functionality. So, if you use them on Windows, you'll be locked into the rendering of Windows Media Player, most people don't like that.