"however as a general point in using the GPL with your development, eg. linking to libraries"
That is not even neccesarily true. Someone made the claim that linking obligates you to GPL you code as part of FUD scare campaign. Whether it is actually true or not is an issue of debate. It is just that Linus settled the issue with the kernel by adding a clause to clarify the point and most companies play it safe by assuming it is true. Writing a program that conforms to the api of a library is a very questionable definition of derivative.
He's not head guy, he's their technical contact. That means he's the guy their ignorant IT staff call when things are down and is directly responsible for every second of downtime. That means no freedom and intense stress. The boss gets more freedom in private but not the guys who do the real work.
"Macs are not just prettier than their Wintel counterparts; they are made to last longer and break less."
Once upon a time when there was mac hardware and pc hardware. But in the modern day Apple has traded off Mac hardware for commodity pc hardware without any real reduction in price. The only thing that is not commodity hardware left in the current generation is the processor/board. In the coming generation Mac's will use x86 chips and complete the transformation.
"Wintel counterparts"
This is not a forum where the "win" part of the statement is accurate. You can buy server grade components for the price of the gaming grade hardware apple sells.
"Then add in the software and the price difference is negligible if it exists at all."
Last time I bought a Mac the software it came with was about as barren as that included with windows. Personally I run linux and my distribution comes with a software offering that puts either of those to shame. Unless you are one of those who prefer apples interfaces which is not added value, merely preference.
"just put a cheap 20" LCD monitor"
In the real world 20" LCD's are not cheap at all and most people would not spend the price of another computer on one. Look at a decent Sony LCD next to a Mac display and it will look better. Put a samsung LCD next to an Apple and the sony and it will not be quite as bright but outpeform either. A 20" LCD is added fluff leftover from the days when people associated big monitors with good computers; give me a 15" or 17" inch of better quality for $200 any day.
You are associating false value to the product. If the product specifications are comparable the systems are comparable. Nobody in the history of Mac Fans has been able to prove on a slashdot forum that a decent (not their crap economy models) Mac can be had in the ballpark of a pc.
"Who the hell do you call for support with such a configuration."
You're IT staff, that is what they are there for. Last time I checked, office application support did not require a programmer. You certainly do not get a programmer supporting you when you run office on windows.
"Only in the last couple of years has x86 hardware been workstation class..."
For the last several years x86 hardware has been SERVER class.
"Besides, you keep ignoring my main point that just because Linux machines are used for engineering code at JPL doesn't mean that they are any more ready for the desktop. The author of the story tried to say as much, and in doing so he was being misleading."
If they are being used as simple number crunchers you are right. If they are being used by the engineers as their general purpose workstations then it is certainly valid to call those machines desktops. In modern times the term workstation has been adopted to mean a business class desktop.
"not available on Linux things like Office, or PageMaker, or Keynote, etc."
All of those run perfectly on linux via the wine API. For some functions they actually perform better than they do on the Microsoft implementation of win32.
"On the other hand very few people who have to do any sort of serious calculations would do it on anything other than Unix. A workstation is a high performance computer that is intended to be used by a single user to perform processor intensive work (not games). A PC running Linux can be a workstation without really being useful as a desktop (i.e. not having desktop applications). The long standing dream of Linux on the Desktop is not Grandma running CFD code, it's grandma using Linux to do what she does on Windows now. Saying JPL uses Linux for workstations has nothing to do with Linux succeeding on the desktop, and such 'spin' by the author is an intentionally deceptive ploy to increase site traffic."
So in your mind engineers use workstations and everyone else using a computer to get serious work done is using a desktop? You also almost imply that workstations are actually physically different than desktops. Of course in the modern x86 dominated world there is little difference between server hardware and desktop hardware, and no difference between stable desktop hardware and workstation hardware. Actually workstation from a hardware vendor's standpoint has more to do with OS class and warranty.
Workstation has been used in the computer industry, by system and network admins (as opposed to engineers who really have no place in this discussion) to indicate a client desktop machine in an office environment. As opposed to a desktop machine used at home. Secretaries and management use desktops that could also be called workstations.
It's not a question of not understanding the difference between a workstation and a desktop. A workstation IS a desktop used in a corporate environment. I'm not sure how YOU use the terms but I assure you, you are not privy to some universal truth in the distinction you are making.
Yeah but trees serve another function. THEY GENERATE OXYGEN. Your solar panels actually pollute the earth when constructed and your windmills take up space. Both your solar panels and windmills require too much space to succeed as a longterm replacement for fossil fuels. In the meantime lets keep looking for VIABLE renewable energy sources.
"it's going to be doing something funky to the tree if there's any significant chemical process going on."
No doubt and the soil too. The question is whether the tree can repair itself and rainwater renourish the soil rapidly enough to compensate. Or at least do a good enough job that it takes a substantial length of time to lose the fight. Trees are a renewable resource after all.
The type of tree and the trees sap could have an impact in this as well. Just because his way of tapping the energy is simple does not mean that it is an altogether bad idea or useless. There has to be enough current to be useful, but one also must remember that there is no shortage of trees in the world.
Burning the tree will certainly kill it. This may not. The tree draws power from the sun and nutrients from the earth that it uses to repair itself. Rainwater will also correct the PH in the soil. Depending on the wattage he can pull out of his potato clock it could work.
'"Helpful Grammar Person" to being a "Grammar Troll"'
I fail to see a distinction. Such "helpful" comments are not on-topic, not welcome, and not invited on these forums. They serve as a far greater distraction than the errors they attempt to correct.
"In that case, you've lost a huge reason why ID is considered not a science."
Fortunately ID continues to fail on many other major points of science. First it does not actually solve the problem it merely adds another layer. We created paperclips. If the paperclips figure that out it still begs the question of who created the raw material we fashioned them from adn who created us. That chains continues so long as there remains a creator and a createe. Since ID does not solve the problem, it is not a workable theory. ID is also can not be disproven, ever, no matter what advances in technology occur or discoveries are made.
Actually Occam's razor would lead one more directly to ID. Evolution requires many assumptions, ID requires only the assumption that some invisible unquestionable magical being in the sky did it all. Since Occam's razor uses the number of assumptions and not the probability of the assumptions then Evolution would be shaved by the razor if ID were a valid scientific theory in the first place.
"What is false about this? The first part of the sentence says that the two theories give the same results."
No two theories give the same results. They only predict the current evidence with equal accuracy. The ultimate goal is NOT to get a theory that mimics all the data we can find, the ultimate goal is come up with a theory that is an exact match for the FACT of what is going on. That fact is no more likely to be the simpler theory than the more complex one. The goal of science is not to develop and disprove theories, the theories are a means on a path that should lead to discovering facts.
"I don't go around correcting others grammar. You might have missed it, but my post's point was to point out that your post was not likely to get the AC to reveal him or herself."
Your post implied that you approve of the action of grammar trolls. You did this by making a sarcastic remark about grammar trolls are recieved (directed more at Slashdot in general than me I think). I don't recall anything in your post about my odds of success in getting the troll to reveal himself.
"looks like you need to relax a bit, and quit taking/. so seriously"
Not really, the whole thing is a game. It is my own private bit of amusement to keep me entertained. I have to change the sig and maybe post under other uid's though because the grammar trolls have made AC posts a habit. To me this is confirmation that they really are intentionally trolling when they correct grammar.
Nobody claimed cups was perfect. It does succeed in acomplishing everything of merit that LPRng does however. As for it being the De Facto standard, I will not argue the point. After all, modern distributions argue the point for me.
"Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler."
This is false logic. The valid application of logic to the choice of theory is determined by the correct answer and evidence when and if it presents itself. There is no valid logic that says a less complex logical theory is more likely to be correct than a more complex logical theory.
Slashdot Mirror
"however as a general point in using the GPL with your development, eg. linking to libraries"
That is not even neccesarily true. Someone made the claim that linking obligates you to GPL you code as part of FUD scare campaign. Whether it is actually true or not is an issue of debate. It is just that Linus settled the issue with the kernel by adding a clause to clarify the point and most companies play it safe by assuming it is true. Writing a program that conforms to the api of a library is a very questionable definition of derivative.
He's not head guy, he's their technical contact. That means he's the guy their ignorant IT staff call when things are down and is directly responsible for every second of downtime. That means no freedom and intense stress. The boss gets more freedom in private but not the guys who do the real work.
Yup, that sounds like it should be in keeping with Microsoft's vaporware feature policies.
"Macs are not just prettier than their Wintel counterparts; they are made to last longer and break less."
Once upon a time when there was mac hardware and pc hardware. But in the modern day Apple has traded off Mac hardware for commodity pc hardware without any real reduction in price. The only thing that is not commodity hardware left in the current generation is the processor/board. In the coming generation Mac's will use x86 chips and complete the transformation.
"Wintel counterparts"
This is not a forum where the "win" part of the statement is accurate. You can buy server grade components for the price of the gaming grade hardware apple sells.
"Then add in the software and the price difference is negligible if it exists at all."
Last time I bought a Mac the software it came with was about as barren as that included with windows. Personally I run linux and my distribution comes with a software offering that puts either of those to shame. Unless you are one of those who prefer apples interfaces which is not added value, merely preference.
"just put a cheap 20" LCD monitor"
In the real world 20" LCD's are not cheap at all and most people would not spend the price of another computer on one. Look at a decent Sony LCD next to a Mac display and it will look better. Put a samsung LCD next to an Apple and the sony and it will not be quite as bright but outpeform either. A 20" LCD is added fluff leftover from the days when people associated big monitors with good computers; give me a 15" or 17" inch of better quality for $200 any day.
You are associating false value to the product. If the product specifications are comparable the systems are comparable. Nobody in the history of Mac Fans has been able to prove on a slashdot forum that a decent (not their crap economy models) Mac can be had in the ballpark of a pc.
"Who the hell do you call for support with such a configuration."
You're IT staff, that is what they are there for. Last time I checked, office application support did not require a programmer. You certainly do not get a programmer supporting you when you run office on windows.
"Only in the last couple of years has x86 hardware been workstation class..."
For the last several years x86 hardware has been SERVER class.
"Besides, you keep ignoring my main point that just because Linux machines are used for engineering code at JPL doesn't mean that they are any more ready for the desktop. The author of the story tried to say as much, and in doing so he was being misleading."
If they are being used as simple number crunchers you are right. If they are being used by the engineers as their general purpose workstations then it is certainly valid to call those machines desktops. In modern times the term workstation has been adopted to mean a business class desktop.
"The term "workstation" has long been used to differentiate"
I believe you mean "was long ago used to differentiate". Nowdays those "crappy IBM clones" are server class machines.
"not available on Linux things like Office, or PageMaker, or Keynote, etc."
All of those run perfectly on linux via the wine API. For some functions they actually perform better than they do on the Microsoft implementation of win32.
"On the other hand very few people who have to do any sort of serious calculations would do it on anything other than Unix. A workstation is a high performance computer that is intended to be used by a single user to perform processor intensive work (not games). A PC running Linux can be a workstation without really being useful as a desktop (i.e. not having desktop applications). The long standing dream of Linux on the Desktop is not Grandma running CFD code, it's grandma using Linux to do what she does on Windows now. Saying JPL uses Linux for workstations has nothing to do with Linux succeeding on the desktop, and such 'spin' by the author is an intentionally deceptive ploy to increase site traffic."
So in your mind engineers use workstations and everyone else using a computer to get serious work done is using a desktop? You also almost imply that workstations are actually physically different than desktops. Of course in the modern x86 dominated world there is little difference between server hardware and desktop hardware, and no difference between stable desktop hardware and workstation hardware. Actually workstation from a hardware vendor's standpoint has more to do with OS class and warranty.
Workstation has been used in the computer industry, by system and network admins (as opposed to engineers who really have no place in this discussion) to indicate a client desktop machine in an office environment. As opposed to a desktop machine used at home. Secretaries and management use desktops that could also be called workstations.
The summary neglects to mention that the plant studied had beans for dinner that night.
It's not a question of not understanding the difference between a workstation and a desktop. A workstation IS a desktop used in a corporate environment. I'm not sure how YOU use the terms but I assure you, you are not privy to some universal truth in the distinction you are making.
So your saying linux is used by everyone but the secretary? The difference between a workstation and desktop is the price tag.
Yeah but trees serve another function. THEY GENERATE OXYGEN. Your solar panels actually pollute the earth when constructed and your windmills take up space. Both your solar panels and windmills require too much space to succeed as a longterm replacement for fossil fuels. In the meantime lets keep looking for VIABLE renewable energy sources.
"The original Quake would also probably work in python, but I'm guessing you meant Quake IV"
Not if you tried to run it on the same computers that were originally used to play the original Quake.
"it's going to be doing something funky to the tree if there's any significant chemical process going on."
No doubt and the soil too. The question is whether the tree can repair itself and rainwater renourish the soil rapidly enough to compensate. Or at least do a good enough job that it takes a substantial length of time to lose the fight. Trees are a renewable resource after all.
The type of tree and the trees sap could have an impact in this as well. Just because his way of tapping the energy is simple does not mean that it is an altogether bad idea or useless. There has to be enough current to be useful, but one also must remember that there is no shortage of trees in the world.
Burning the tree will certainly kill it. This may not. The tree draws power from the sun and nutrients from the earth that it uses to repair itself. Rainwater will also correct the PH in the soil. Depending on the wattage he can pull out of his potato clock it could work.
Yes but one should remember this interview was with the CEO and not with the inventor.
'"Helpful Grammar Person" to being a "Grammar Troll"'
I fail to see a distinction. Such "helpful" comments are not on-topic, not welcome, and not invited on these forums. They serve as a far greater distraction than the errors they attempt to correct.
"In that case, you've lost a huge reason why ID is considered not a science."
Fortunately ID continues to fail on many other major points of science. First it does not actually solve the problem it merely adds another layer. We created paperclips. If the paperclips figure that out it still begs the question of who created the raw material we fashioned them from adn who created us. That chains continues so long as there remains a creator and a createe. Since ID does not solve the problem, it is not a workable theory. ID is also can not be disproven, ever, no matter what advances in technology occur or discoveries are made.
Actually Occam's razor would lead one more directly to ID. Evolution requires many assumptions, ID requires only the assumption that some invisible unquestionable magical being in the sky did it all. Since Occam's razor uses the number of assumptions and not the probability of the assumptions then Evolution would be shaved by the razor if ID were a valid scientific theory in the first place.
"What is false about this? The first part of the sentence says that the two theories give the same results."
No two theories give the same results. They only predict the current evidence with equal accuracy. The ultimate goal is NOT to get a theory that mimics all the data we can find, the ultimate goal is come up with a theory that is an exact match for the FACT of what is going on. That fact is no more likely to be the simpler theory than the more complex one. The goal of science is not to develop and disprove theories, the theories are a means on a path that should lead to discovering facts.
"I don't go around correcting others grammar. You might have missed it, but my post's point was to point out that your post was not likely to get the AC to reveal him or herself."
/. so seriously"
Your post implied that you approve of the action of grammar trolls. You did this by making a sarcastic remark about grammar trolls are recieved (directed more at Slashdot in general than me I think). I don't recall anything in your post about my odds of success in getting the troll to reveal himself.
"looks like you need to relax a bit, and quit taking
Not really, the whole thing is a game. It is my own private bit of amusement to keep me entertained. I have to change the sig and maybe post under other uid's though because the grammar trolls have made AC posts a habit. To me this is confirmation that they really are intentionally trolling when they correct grammar.
He is off topic. Read my journal, the sig is bait. Somebody was used as a tool, but it wasn't me. ;)
Please log on and reply so that I can adjust relationship accordingly.
Nobody claimed cups was perfect. It does succeed in acomplishing everything of merit that LPRng does however. As for it being the De Facto standard, I will not argue the point. After all, modern distributions argue the point for me.
Please login and reply so that I can adjust my relationships. :)
From the linked wikipedia article:
"Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler."
This is false logic. The valid application of logic to the choice of theory is determined by the correct answer and evidence when and if it presents itself. There is no valid logic that says a less complex logical theory is more likely to be correct than a more complex logical theory.