do apt-get install synaptic. Use Synaptic GUI to find, pull down, install, upgrade whatever software you want.
And that's the problem. How is the average user *supposed* to know what the hell Synaptic is? Or where to find it? And don't tell me that there's trial and error. Because most people aren't very curious.
If you want average users to be able to run Linux, you must have some sort of connection between the program's name...and what it does. Right now, people don't. Although many of these programs are categorized into various menus: Multimedia, Internet, etc., the name itself does not speak for what the piece of software does. How is the average user going to know what xmms is?
Right now, I'm hearing a lot of "all you have to do is [insert something here]" or "search google for [...]". To the person who has never heard of rpms before, the urpmi looks like a jumble of mush.
I understand that you think it's easy and that you want more people to become users. But you have to be willing to sit down and actually hold their hands. If you don't, they'll switch right back to Windows, despite security problems and bugs.
(A) The scope of parameters is the method in which they are defined. (B) Static methods have no implicit paramater this. (C) Two overloaded methods in the same class must have paramters with different names. (D) All parameters in Java are passed by value. (E) Two different constructors in a given class can have the same number of parameters.
The answer is C. I'll take that. But look closely at answer D. For objects, references are passed, not values. However, the AP exlpanation was, "Choice D is true even for object parameters: their references are passed by value."
The US was (and probably still is) at the forefront of technology for the last couple of decades for one simple reason: innovation and invention. We have all of the patents for most of the major breakthroughs of the computing age. Look at the major US companies in the tech sectors, Microsoft, IBM, etc. What would the US be without Intel? What would have happened if Bell Labs had not existed? Oh, you don't think Bell Labs did anything? Look here [Bell Labs]. They invented most everything that makes the world turn, from UNIX, to C, to the transistor, and the cell phone.
Don't blame this on the failing economy, blame the US government for not funding the sciences more. Blame them for not cultivating this in schools. Where's the incentive to become an engineer, to become a software developer?
When money is poured into a field, great things happen. Look at the Apollo program. Look at Bell Labs. UNIX is the result of a bunch of PHDs sitting around with a lot of money. We are coming to a point in time where the US is losing its upper hand in the tech sector. And don't tell me that we build more airplanes than anyone else. Airbus overtook Boeing in terms of sales quite a while ago. The US is losing ground, and outsourcing is one of the effects of this.
The underlying reason is not the lack of confidence in the economy, or the cheaper labor in India, it's because America is starting to lag behind.
Why was Sun Microsystems even mentioned in this article. Sun is taking a beating from the spread of Linux. Sure, they offer some servers with Linux, but their operating system that they're trying to market is Solaris.
Too, the whole idea of Linux is to have boxes running on commodity chips, namely x86, because of the price. Sun is fighting an upward battle, they got into the market too late, are fighting IBM and HP, and aren't geared towards the lower end server market. Companies finally realized that they don't need to purchase mainframes every month.
And don't tell me that because Sun released Solaris to the public that they're on the bandwagon. Have you even attempted to download it? They check to make sure that your inputed address is valid with the zip code. And this is in stride with the open source movement?
"Second, it can perform a denial-of-service against www.sco.com."
Even though I do not approve of SCO's actions against Linux and the open source movements, the spread of a DOS attack against SCO's website is downright wrong. You should be ashamed of the fact that you place yourself one the side of the people who think it is indeed funny to take a company's site down. Does it really matter if they are a hated group? A DOS attack is just plain wrong. In fact, it might be the lowest form of 'revenge' out there.
If you continue to support these crackers, then SCO is no longer the big Goliath, and SCO's allegations about the dirty open source movement have some validity. The statement, "hey, it's SCO" proves that we are indeed as worse as McBride. If we want to be victorious in the open source/Linux vs. SCO, then we must hold ourselves higher than supporting DOS attacks against SCO.
We also must take into account that NASA really is just an extension of the military. Sure, we can all say that space is not to be conquered, but have we really wondered how militarized Earth's orbit really is? The lists are endless. GPS. Spy satellites. Communication satellites. "Weather satellites". All of these have some connection with our military. Whoever controls the skies controls the battlefields, just as air power does today.
If you don't believe this, take, for example, the fact that Sean O'Keefe was the former Secretary of the Navy. Too, many of the space shuttle launches are indeed for military purposes.
NASA serves as an extension of the military's budget. Can we truly ccount for the 17 billion dollars actually going into space exploration?
I think we're all missing the point here. Say we have a 2 gHz computer. (By the way, gHz really means nothing.) The speed doubles. Is that same machine twice as fast? Of course not. For sure, the limiting factor is the hard drive. While SCSI may be the most viable option for speed, we don't see drive speeds following any sort of marked increase.
I'll throw some numbers out. These are fictitious. Say we have an application that is processor intensive and read/writes a massive amount. It takes 10 seconds to process a request. (50% hard drive, 50% processor, other factors, like RAM, we don't factor in, we're looking at the point here.) The speed of the processor doubles, cutting the time for the processor in half, leaving us with 2.5 seconds instead of 5 seconds. Continuing the pattern, we soon learn it's exponential decay, with a rock bottom at 5 seconds.
Intel even acknowledged that speed wasn't everything, their very own centrino technology contradicts that Hz are everything to a computer. (running at 1-1.5 gHz clock range).
Sure, this might be useful for people with massive beowulfs, but for 90% of the home and business computing applciations, excluding servers, 1.5 ghz will do just fine, coupled with a decent drive, RAM, and a lack of any sort of windows variant, well, XP's okay. cough, cough
Indeed, President Clinton cancelled selective availability, as it was called, in May of 2000. This order effectively stopped the intentional degredation of satellite signals (which might aid the enemy). Apparently, the benefits outweighed the potential costs.
I've heard certain sources that say landfills are specifically designed to stop the seeping of hazardous materials (like cadmium, from batteries people throw out) out of the landfill and into the water table (which is bad). The result of these changes to the structure of the landfill, it severely impairs the decomposing process of paper. We commonly hear that paper decomposes very quickly, weeks to years according to some sources.
Landfills are built with the use of cells, which are of a mangable size. The trash is compressed, and depositied in the cell. Then soil and perhaps plastic is placed on top to seal the cell off. The idea is to isolate the trash from everything: including water, people, plants, trees, etc.
In fact, when older landfills are excavated, we find 40 year old newspapers, which are READABLE. Landfills are meant to store trash, and not allow it to decompose. If we think about it, if all trash did decompose, imagine the gases that would be coming out of the landfill. (howstuffworks.com)
Slashdot Mirror
do apt-get install synaptic. Use Synaptic GUI to find, pull down, install, upgrade whatever software you want.
And that's the problem. How is the average user *supposed* to know what the hell Synaptic is? Or where to find it? And don't tell me that there's trial and error. Because most people aren't very curious.
If you want average users to be able to run Linux, you must have some sort of connection between the program's name...and what it does. Right now, people don't. Although many of these programs are categorized into various menus: Multimedia, Internet, etc., the name itself does not speak for what the piece of software does. How is the average user going to know what xmms is?
Right now, I'm hearing a lot of "all you have to do is [insert something here]" or "search google for [...]". To the person who has never heard of rpms before, the urpmi looks like a jumble of mush.
I understand that you think it's easy and that you want more people to become users. But you have to be willing to sit down and actually hold their hands. If you don't, they'll switch right back to Windows, despite security problems and bugs.
MCSE Certification
Here's an example of a problem:
Which statement about parameters is false?
(A) The scope of parameters is the method in which they are defined.
(B) Static methods have no implicit paramater this.
(C) Two overloaded methods in the same class must have paramters with different names.
(D) All parameters in Java are passed by value.
(E) Two different constructors in a given class can have the same number of parameters.
The answer is C. I'll take that. But look closely at answer D. For objects, references are passed, not values. However, the AP exlpanation was, "Choice D is true even for object parameters: their references are passed by value."
How much more asinine can you be?
The US was (and probably still is) at the forefront of technology for the last couple of decades for one simple reason: innovation and invention. We have all of the patents for most of the major breakthroughs of the computing age. Look at the major US companies in the tech sectors, Microsoft, IBM, etc. What would the US be without Intel? What would have happened if Bell Labs had not existed? Oh, you don't think Bell Labs did anything? Look here [Bell Labs]. They invented most everything that makes the world turn, from UNIX, to C, to the transistor, and the cell phone.
Don't blame this on the failing economy, blame the US government for not funding the sciences more. Blame them for not cultivating this in schools. Where's the incentive to become an engineer, to become a software developer?
When money is poured into a field, great things happen. Look at the Apollo program. Look at Bell Labs. UNIX is the result of a bunch of PHDs sitting around with a lot of money. We are coming to a point in time where the US is losing its upper hand in the tech sector. And don't tell me that we build more airplanes than anyone else. Airbus overtook Boeing in terms of sales quite a while ago. The US is losing ground, and outsourcing is one of the effects of this.
The underlying reason is not the lack of confidence in the economy, or the cheaper labor in India, it's because America is starting to lag behind.
Why was Sun Microsystems even mentioned in this article. Sun is taking a beating from the spread of Linux. Sure, they offer some servers with Linux, but their operating system that they're trying to market is Solaris.
Too, the whole idea of Linux is to have boxes running on commodity chips, namely x86, because of the price. Sun is fighting an upward battle, they got into the market too late, are fighting IBM and HP, and aren't geared towards the lower end server market. Companies finally realized that they don't need to purchase mainframes every month.
And don't tell me that because Sun released Solaris to the public that they're on the bandwagon. Have you even attempted to download it? They check to make sure that your inputed address is valid with the zip code. And this is in stride with the open source movement?
"Second, it can perform a denial-of-service against www.sco.com."
Even though I do not approve of SCO's actions against Linux and the open source movements, the spread of a DOS attack against SCO's website is downright wrong. You should be ashamed of the fact that you place yourself one the side of the people who think it is indeed funny to take a company's site down. Does it really matter if they are a hated group? A DOS attack is just plain wrong. In fact, it might be the lowest form of 'revenge' out there.
If you continue to support these crackers, then SCO is no longer the big Goliath, and SCO's allegations about the dirty open source movement have some validity. The statement, "hey, it's SCO" proves that we are indeed as worse as McBride. If we want to be victorious in the open source/Linux vs. SCO, then we must hold ourselves higher than supporting DOS attacks against SCO.
We also must take into account that NASA really is just an extension of the military. Sure, we can all say that space is not to be conquered, but have we really wondered how militarized Earth's orbit really is? The lists are endless. GPS. Spy satellites. Communication satellites. "Weather satellites". All of these have some connection with our military. Whoever controls the skies controls the battlefields, just as air power does today.
If you don't believe this, take, for example, the fact that Sean O'Keefe was the former Secretary of the Navy. Too, many of the space shuttle launches are indeed for military purposes.
NASA serves as an extension of the military's budget. Can we truly ccount for the 17 billion dollars actually going into space exploration?
I think we're all missing the point here. Say we have a 2 gHz computer. (By the way, gHz really means nothing.) The speed doubles. Is that same machine twice as fast? Of course not. For sure, the limiting factor is the hard drive. While SCSI may be the most viable option for speed, we don't see drive speeds following any sort of marked increase.
I'll throw some numbers out. These are fictitious. Say we have an application that is processor intensive and read/writes a massive amount. It takes 10 seconds to process a request. (50% hard drive, 50% processor, other factors, like RAM, we don't factor in, we're looking at the point here.) The speed of the processor doubles, cutting the time for the processor in half, leaving us with 2.5 seconds instead of 5 seconds. Continuing the pattern, we soon learn it's exponential decay, with a rock bottom at 5 seconds.
Intel even acknowledged that speed wasn't everything, their very own centrino technology contradicts that Hz are everything to a computer. (running at 1-1.5 gHz clock range).
Sure, this might be useful for people with massive beowulfs, but for 90% of the home and business computing applciations, excluding servers, 1.5 ghz will do just fine, coupled with a decent drive, RAM, and a lack of any sort of windows variant, well, XP's okay. cough, cough
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/selective_availab ility.htm
I've heard certain sources that say landfills are specifically designed to stop the seeping of hazardous materials (like cadmium, from batteries people throw out) out of the landfill and into the water table (which is bad). The result of these changes to the structure of the landfill, it severely impairs the decomposing process of paper. We commonly hear that paper decomposes very quickly, weeks to years according to some sources.
Landfills are built with the use of cells, which are of a mangable size. The trash is compressed, and depositied in the cell. Then soil and perhaps plastic is placed on top to seal the cell off. The idea is to isolate the trash from everything: including water, people, plants, trees, etc.
In fact, when older landfills are excavated, we find 40 year old newspapers, which are READABLE. Landfills are meant to store trash, and not allow it to decompose. If we think about it, if all trash did decompose, imagine the gases that would be coming out of the landfill. (howstuffworks.com)
Yes it does. It is right here http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=google, unless it doesn't change.
It is listed under "Postcards from Planet Google". When the url link is clicked on, it goes to the nyt site.
Speaking of google, it would be interesting if google would have a "Live Query" on their site (if its not already done, and to my knowledge, it isn't)