The wxWindows license is LGPL with an exception to allow static linking and binary-only distribution without extra source distribution burdens. This is nice when you want to tweak a platform's behavior at the toolkit layer.
So far, I've tried 2 different distributions on my iBook2. Neither is able to make the internal airport card work via DHCP.
Really? It's working fine on my pismo with debian. I have eth1 configured to use dhcp, I have dhcpcd installed, and an ifup eth1 has me connected to an airport base station without a second thought. This is using 2.4.15-ben0.
However, `could of' for `could have' is hardly something made up for this thread.
I believe the spelling you're looking for is "could've." Sort of like "I've" or "you've." That way, it still sounds colloquial, but it actually makes grammatical sense.
The same group of people who whine about no alternatives and always being forced into doing something is now asking for a SINGLE dvd
standard? Wow... talk about hypocrits.[sic]
I see statements like this around here surprisingly often. What it fails to take into account is context. Specifically, the choice between unity and variety should be made based on which enhances the flow of information.
When talking about programs to edit files of type x, you want more than one available so that you can use the one that best suits your situation. When you're talking about the files themselves, you want a standard (or maybe a small few) so that you can give the file to someone else and be reasonably assured that s/he can read the file.
The standards with which most slashdotters seem to have problems are extremely closed ones which by their very nature inhibit the flow of information. Since a DVD-R standard would enhance, not restrict information flow, there is no hypocricy in advocating one.
My understanding of copyright law is that if software is copyrighted (as GPL code is), you have *no* rights of use or redistribution unless you agree to a license. Thus, by using the software as is or using portions in your own code, you are agreeing to the terms of use given in the license.
I wonder how much processing power you need to render your animation...
I'm guessing that they're not going to be using computers to do this. They'll just have a video signal from all 33 cameras available, and instead of switching between them with buttons like in normal linear editing, they use a dial.
I'm just astounded that anybody DISAGREES with this decision!
I never said anything about the decision, and in fact, I think the supreme court's decision not to review was a good one. I can even understand the circuit court's ruling. But I still don't think it's a good law. It tries to apply a blanket morality to all of the state's employees. I feel that such decisions should be made at as local a level as possible, if at all. The fact that it's a government policy also means they should be more careful of expression issues, not less.
People act in self-centered ways without considering the impact on others. So
now a person who needs to surf at work can, while someone who just wants to surf porn using the high-speed internet connection at
work, making ME do more work because they're, uhhh, occupied (yeah, I'm reading this at work) can't. I don't see the problem with
this.
So enforce porn policies at the workplace level. The problem with this law is that it's a blanket ban without regard for special circumstances that a local policy may have. If you take a look at the plaintiffs, they had legitimate reasons to be viewing such matierial with regards to their jobs. Researching poetry with sexual themes, federal decency laws, etc.
How is this bad? Start counting, because I'm really interested to see your ways.
Let's look at the quote again:
state employees did not have a First Amendment right
to disregard the law and decide for themselves whether
sexually explicit material was required for their professional,
employment-related research and writing needs.
Strawman: The plaintiffs were not arguing that they had a first amendment right to violate the law.
They were arguing that the law should be overturned so that they could perform their professional duties. They were not talking about disregarding the law, as evidenced by the very fact that they brought the suit.
He is essentially saying that a blanket state law is more able than the professors to decide what they do or do not need to access in order to perform their professional duties. This is impossible.
If you have problems with walking in on your coworkers and their porn, that's between you, your coworker, and your employer. However, if your coworker has a legitimate work-related reason to be viewing it, I'm not sure you have much of a case. I certainly don't think the state should be getting involved.
[Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley]
said state employees did not have a First Amendment right to disregard
the law and decide for themselves whether sexually explicit material was
required for their professional, employment-related research and writing
needs.
Is he saying what I think he's saying? Does it have to be enumerated in the constitution for this guy to believe that people can decide for themselves what they need to access for their work? I hope he was simply misquoted, because that statement is bad in more ways than I can count.
This sort of thing is probably a good idea as long as it has one simple feature. If you press a specific key during the start up sequence
the nice pretty image disappears and is replaced by the useful messages.
This does appear to be the case. It displays the image on virtual terminal 2, and the boot messages remain on terminal 1. It shows warnings and errors with an icon, and if you care for the details, just switch to terminal 1.
While I don't see how IBM has any responsibility to do this, I would love to see them support DCE/DFS on linux. My university just moved the network from AFS to DFS and there's no reliable way of accessing DFS from linux. A linux DFS port would also allow the server I have a part in running to get away from NT.
The Verizon strike here in PA went into the start of the semester. (Is it still going on? I'm not paying attention.) That meant that all these people with off-campus housing who needed new phone lines or subscriptions couldn't get them right away. As a result, area cell phone providers have been setting up booths everywhere around campus and making a killing. The number of people walking to class while talking on the phone has increased noticably this year.
By my reading, it looks like the patent is just for tabbed palettes. That's not quite as generic as a patent on tabs, which would take out just about any GUI program of reasonable size written in the past couple of years.
Doesn't this go back to the failed look and feel court cases such as Apple's, though? It does seem to be pretty lame and doesn't seem to have precedent supporting it there.
When I went to school a few years back, I subtly noticed that there were no Pepsi machines on campus. Not only that, but the Coke
was way overpriced. We're talking about a fairly large school here, 30K students plus who knows how many support staff and
personnel. I always wondered what kind of financial compensation the university got for the agreement with Coca-cola.
Well, we're a Pepsi school. I think Pepsi paid for the old scoreboard for the foot ball stadium and has their logo on it. Of course it's exclusive and overpriced and the students just tend to go across the street into town to get cubes of Coke, anyway.:)
Nike is also a big advertiser around here. They give equipment to the football team and shoes to the marching band and they get their swooshes on the football jerseys.
All that I can understand... but what I don't understand is that my school is paying Microsoft to distribute Microsoft software. It's not exactly an exclusive contract, but it may as well be for all the advertising that's going on. I don't think any average computer user would even get the idea to use a program that wasn't written by Microsoft. (maybe Netscape or AOL... since they're so much better, right?)
You are right there. I was trying to make the unpopular argument that somewhere, however deep and dark you want it to be, free speech should have a limit. I realize my argument won't convince everyone, but I believe it was thoughtfully made.
I'll stipulate that free speech should have a limit. That limit is when that speech directly harms other person(s). (Slander, libel, and disclosure of secrets.) But your argument seemed to be basically that speech about illegal activities should be illegal, and I don't agree with that. Aside form the substantial disagreement as to what, exactly, is wrong and the always changing laws, it simply doesn't cause direct harm.
As for your examples, yes, I believe people have a right to read those books. I don't believe they have the right to act on what those books demonstrate. There's also, of course, a fine line between public, free speech and a conspiricy which may be inferred from sending instructions on poisining water to six specific individuals.
Yes, for the same reason that driving under the influence of alcohol is wrong; it's much more likely to cause an accident and hurt other people.
Is LSD use while performing heart surgery wrong?
Ditto. The patient has the right to expect that his/her doctor is operating (no pun intended) at full mental capacity.
Is LSD use while piloting a commercial airliner wrong?
Same. Pilots need to be at full mental capacity, especially when they're directly responsible for hundreds of lives.
Is it wrong to use drugs on someone else for the purpose of rape, kidnapping, or any number of other crimes?
Of course not. No where have I seen anyone argue that x, y, or z should be legal because it's ok to hurt someone else. (Possible exception is the death penalty argument, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.)
At some level in this line of questioning, virtually everyone will answer yes.
I, and I imagine most other libertarian thinkers, will answer yes when the damage that drugs cause is no longer limited to oneself. When you're hurting others, it's wrong. But that's not enough to make the blanket statement, "Drugs are wrong."
A lot of the same stuff (brand wars) is going on in junior high and high schools with Pepsi and Coke - Not just early advertising, but downright force of product in order to get donations.
The interesting thing about that is that it seems to backfire. I'm at Penn State, a thoroughly Pepsi university (by contract), and just about everyone I know gets so sick of Pepsi that when they leave campus, they get Cokes. Now my high school is considering a soda contract, and I can't help but wonder if the same thing will happen there.
Of course, it wouldn't work the same way with computers. This move seems a little paranoid of Intel.
I agree with most of what you said. I have a couple of comments, though.
-I suppose that's more a design decision then anything else. Why would you want to move from button to button if you can activate then using the command-keys ? Redundancy, in my opinion, is mostly a very good way of losing beginner users...
I'm 98.6% certain that Mac Human Interface Guidelines say that redundancy is a Good Thing(tm). My copy is elsewhere, so I can't make that 100% certainty. But I recall redundancy being justified because if the user wants to do something, it's more likely that s/he will figure out one way of doing it.
-I'm not sure I see why this would be annoying. If the user is supposed to have and use a mouse, why would he need to be able to do everything by keyboard? Moreover, to do so you'd have to show which key activates which menu, isn't that more information to overload your user with?
The point for me is more that the menus can be navigated with the keyboard than that each individual menu item have a hotkey. I like linux and mac a lot better than windoze, but if there's one feature that I would bring to both systems, it's the ability to do everything that's text-based from the keyboard.
True, you don't need to use the keyboard for everything. However, when I'm in typing mode, it's a lot easier to use alt and the arrow keys than to move over to the trackball and try to navigate.
And yeah, there's third party stuff. I just wish it were safer for the system. That patching at startup thing isn't always the best solution.
Slashdot Mirror
The wxWindows license is LGPL with an exception to allow static linking and binary-only distribution without extra source distribution burdens. This is nice when you want to tweak a platform's behavior at the toolkit layer.
Troy McClure, aka Phil Hartman, explains the food chain, which shows a Shark jumping out of the water and eating a Gorilla hanging from a tree.
Could it be said, then, that that's when the Simpsons jumped the shark?
So far, I've tried 2 different distributions on my iBook2. Neither is able to make the internal airport card work via DHCP.
Really? It's working fine on my pismo with debian. I have eth1 configured to use dhcp, I have dhcpcd installed, and an ifup eth1 has me connected to an airport base station without a second thought. This is using 2.4.15-ben0.
I believe the spelling you're looking for is "could've." Sort of like "I've" or "you've." That way, it still sounds colloquial, but it actually makes grammatical sense.
I see statements like this around here surprisingly often. What it fails to take into account is context. Specifically, the choice between unity and variety should be made based on which enhances the flow of information.
When talking about programs to edit files of type x, you want more than one available so that you can use the one that best suits your situation. When you're talking about the files themselves, you want a standard (or maybe a small few) so that you can give the file to someone else and be reasonably assured that s/he can read the file.
The standards with which most slashdotters seem to have problems are extremely closed ones which by their very nature inhibit the flow of information. Since a DVD-R standard would enhance, not restrict information flow, there is no hypocricy in advocating one.
My understanding of copyright law is that if software is copyrighted (as GPL code is), you have *no* rights of use or redistribution unless you agree to a license. Thus, by using the software as is or using portions in your own code, you are agreeing to the terms of use given in the license.
I'm guessing that they're not going to be using computers to do this. They'll just have a video signal from all 33 cameras available, and instead of switching between them with buttons like in normal linear editing, they use a dial.
2???
Yes, two. The mac comes with one. X uses three. That leaves two to be emulated.
And FWIW, LinuxPPC did that out of the box for me. Now I have a four-button trackball, but I could still use emulation if I wanted to.
I'm just astounded that anybody DISAGREES with this decision!
I never said anything about the decision, and in fact, I think the supreme court's decision not to review was a good one. I can even understand the circuit court's ruling. But I still don't think it's a good law. It tries to apply a blanket morality to all of the state's employees. I feel that such decisions should be made at as local a level as possible, if at all. The fact that it's a government policy also means they should be more careful of expression issues, not less.
People act in self-centered ways without considering the impact on others. So now a person who needs to surf at work can, while someone who just wants to surf porn using the high-speed internet connection at work, making ME do more work because they're, uhhh, occupied (yeah, I'm reading this at work) can't. I don't see the problem with this.
So enforce porn policies at the workplace level. The problem with this law is that it's a blanket ban without regard for special circumstances that a local policy may have. If you take a look at the plaintiffs, they had legitimate reasons to be viewing such matierial with regards to their jobs. Researching poetry with sexual themes, federal decency laws, etc.
How is this bad? Start counting, because I'm really interested to see your ways.
Let's look at the quote again:
state employees did not have a First Amendment right to disregard the law and decide for themselves whether sexually explicit material was required for their professional, employment-related research and writing needs.
If you have problems with walking in on your coworkers and their porn, that's between you, your coworker, and your employer. However, if your coworker has a legitimate work-related reason to be viewing it, I'm not sure you have much of a case. I certainly don't think the state should be getting involved.
From the article:
[Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley] said state employees did not have a First Amendment right to disregard the law and decide for themselves whether sexually explicit material was required for their professional, employment-related research and writing needs.
Is he saying what I think he's saying? Does it have to be enumerated in the constitution for this guy to believe that people can decide for themselves what they need to access for their work? I hope he was simply misquoted, because that statement is bad in more ways than I can count.
This does appear to be the case. It displays the image on virtual terminal 2, and the boot messages remain on terminal 1. It shows warnings and errors with an icon, and if you care for the details, just switch to terminal 1.
Yeah, it's selfish, but you asked. ;)
Kinda like this? http://www.microopticalcorp.com/egdem o.h tm
Or the home page, here...
The Verizon strike here in PA went into the start of the semester. (Is it still going on? I'm not paying attention.) That meant that all these people with off-campus housing who needed new phone lines or subscriptions couldn't get them right away. As a result, area cell phone providers have been setting up booths everywhere around campus and making a killing. The number of people walking to class while talking on the phone has increased noticably this year.
Doesn't this go back to the failed look and feel court cases such as Apple's, though? It does seem to be pretty lame and doesn't seem to have precedent supporting it there.
Well, we're a Pepsi school. I think Pepsi paid for the old scoreboard for the foot ball stadium and has their logo on it. Of course it's exclusive and overpriced and the students just tend to go across the street into town to get cubes of Coke, anyway. :)
Nike is also a big advertiser around here. They give equipment to the football team and shoes to the marching band and they get their swooshes on the football jerseys.
All that I can understand... but what I don't understand is that my school is paying Microsoft to distribute Microsoft software. It's not exactly an exclusive contract, but it may as well be for all the advertising that's going on. I don't think any average computer user would even get the idea to use a program that wasn't written by Microsoft. (maybe Netscape or AOL... since they're so much better, right?)
I'll stipulate that free speech should have a limit. That limit is when that speech directly harms other person(s). (Slander, libel, and disclosure of secrets.) But your argument seemed to be basically that speech about illegal activities should be illegal, and I don't agree with that. Aside form the substantial disagreement as to what, exactly, is wrong and the always changing laws, it simply doesn't cause direct harm.
As for your examples, yes, I believe people have a right to read those books. I don't believe they have the right to act on what those books demonstrate. There's also, of course, a fine line between public, free speech and a conspiricy which may be inferred from sending instructions on poisining water to six specific individuals.
No, because it doesn't harm other people.
Is marijuana use wrong?
Is LSD use wrong?
Ditto.
Is LSD use while driving wrong?
Yes, for the same reason that driving under the influence of alcohol is wrong; it's much more likely to cause an accident and hurt other people.
Is LSD use while performing heart surgery wrong?
Ditto. The patient has the right to expect that his/her doctor is operating (no pun intended) at full mental capacity.
Is LSD use while piloting a commercial airliner wrong?
Same. Pilots need to be at full mental capacity, especially when they're directly responsible for hundreds of lives.
Is it wrong to use drugs on someone else for the purpose of rape, kidnapping, or any number of other crimes?
Of course not. No where have I seen anyone argue that x, y, or z should be legal because it's ok to hurt someone else. (Possible exception is the death penalty argument, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.)
At some level in this line of questioning, virtually everyone will answer yes.
I, and I imagine most other libertarian thinkers, will answer yes when the damage that drugs cause is no longer limited to oneself. When you're hurting others, it's wrong. But that's not enough to make the blanket statement, "Drugs are wrong."
The interesting thing about that is that it seems to backfire. I'm at Penn State, a thoroughly Pepsi university (by contract), and just about everyone I know gets so sick of Pepsi that when they leave campus, they get Cokes. Now my high school is considering a soda contract, and I can't help but wonder if the same thing will happen there.
Of course, it wouldn't work the same way with computers. This move seems a little paranoid of Intel.
-I suppose that's more a design decision then anything else. Why would you want to move from button to button if you can activate then using the command-keys ? Redundancy, in my opinion, is mostly a very good way of losing beginner users...
I'm 98.6% certain that Mac Human Interface Guidelines say that redundancy is a Good Thing(tm). My copy is elsewhere, so I can't make that 100% certainty. But I recall redundancy being justified because if the user wants to do something, it's more likely that s/he will figure out one way of doing it.
-I'm not sure I see why this would be annoying. If the user is supposed to have and use a mouse, why would he need to be able to do everything by keyboard? Moreover, to do so you'd have to show which key activates which menu, isn't that more information to overload your user with?
The point for me is more that the menus can be navigated with the keyboard than that each individual menu item have a hotkey. I like linux and mac a lot better than windoze, but if there's one feature that I would bring to both systems, it's the ability to do everything that's text-based from the keyboard.
True, you don't need to use the keyboard for everything. However, when I'm in typing mode, it's a lot easier to use alt and the arrow keys than to move over to the trackball and try to navigate.
And yeah, there's third party stuff. I just wish it were safer for the system. That patching at startup thing isn't always the best solution.
My cent. (probably isn't worth 2.)