If a guy of one ethnic group drives by a group of another ethnicity and displays some symbol that the group doesn't like, does that automatically give the group the right to riot?
If the group doesn't riot is it not a hate crime? If they do riot, is the guy guilty of hate crime?
Is rioting a form of democratic political expression? Or is it a hate crime itself?
Jah-Wren Ryel said: "Explain to us how YOU can believe that those quotes, some of them mistranslated and all of them completely out of context, have any meaning at all except to provide you with a shovel to dig yourself deeper and deeper."
Ok,so OeLeWaPpErKe gave eight consecutive clauses. Rather than naysay him, provide instead context which proves him wrong.
I don't consider these: Structured Programming, PASCAL obsolete.
We need more structure in our programming not less; these days there's too much crappy unstructured code. Even object-oriented programming can benefit from structure - otherwise, it begins to look too much like goto style. PASCAL is just a great example of structure.
Mr. McBride's comments excerpted: "when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist. "
Linux Application Development
"Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them]."
POSIX not UNIX and since when does compatibility mean there is no difference?
You are cherry picking scripture out of context. You failed to mention that GOD found the people that were living in the area GOD intended for the Isrealites were an abomination to GOD.
GOD compares the human population to the harvest. There are weeds and there is good grain. The weeds have chosen to be weeds and refuse to change. The Isrealites were to take the place of the weeds and not adopt their culture and become weeds themselves.
Read the whole thing and not just a few verses my AC friend.
That aside, the BIBLE itself is a work of literature that has survived largely intact due to the work of competent archivists over the centuries. A proof of concept that data, science, history and literature etc... can be preserved by using current media containing old data by competent archivists.
viol8 said: "So in 100 years time, building a CD player from 1st principals could well be a tough call!"
Good point. So, one would need to store the data necessary to recreate the device (or a software virtual machine) and it's algorithms. This would need to be done along with an extensive Rosetta Stone type archive so that the data would be readable.
We need to take a lesson from the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance. What mediums survived? How readable were they? How useful were they?
Storing Data For the Next 1,000 Years, at least using today's technology, is not necessary. We will only need to store data for a maximum of 10 years using today's technology - if that.
By then, today's technology will be yesterday's technology; a better way will have been found to store the data more reliably, safely and cheaply.
Take for instance: cellulose film and it's breakdown and loss of so many old movies old photographs and their fading old floppy disks
ANY medium you use even stone is going to deteriorate. What we need is highly trained and compensated archivists; the new breed of librarians. They must be given the tools they need to oversee the mass of knowledge entrusted to them and to effectively utilize technology to achieve that end.
WTH? Are you crazy? Why would they? They've shown time and time again that they'll take BSD code and incorporate it. It's a free ride man.
The BSD guys write the code, the MS/Apple guys take the code and profit. It's a sweet deal for them.
Killing BSD would be like biting the hand that feeds you.
Your points: 1) When Microsoft unloads on GNU/Linux - a place to go to would be gone.
Microsoft is already unloading on Linux. Linux ain't dyin - far from it. Microsoft is profiting from Linux via it's agreement with Novell.
2) Hurts Apple.
BSD is not going away either no matter what MS does. They're not coding primarily for the money but for the purity and freedom of the code itself. MS profits from Apple - they own stock in the company.
Microsoft is a corporation with shareholders also. They have to satisfy their own shareholders.
"ISO standards don't have to be complete and don't have to work."
A standard that is not complete is ambiguous and one that does not work is useless.
I realize the ISO Organization is imperfect but what process with humans involved isn't? Let's hope that sanity, intelligence and good engineering prevail in this Microsoft OOOXML standardization attempt.
Isn't a standard supposed to mean that there is a STANDARD way of doing things? i.e. Henceforth, any document creation tool that adheres to a standard is required to implement that standard as set forth in official standard documents. The standards have to be published in an implementable format in it's entirety? Documents created with one standards adherent tool are required to be inter operable in an official standards adherent tool and vice-versa.
If MS doesn't publish the fully implementable OOXML standard document then it will not be implementable and as such will not be a true standard - defeating their own standards compliance?
It's possible this one could backfire on MS if they don't implement their own standard to standards compliance. If they do implement their own standard and fully publish the standard then we all win - MS will be footing the bill for maintenance of the standard. Could be win-win for us all in the long run.
Seems to me the easy and correct thing to do would be to use deprecation. i.e. keep the old functionality for a bit longer and also patch or make the new kernels properly set the flag right now. This way, we move in the right direction and when it's no longer an issue then we drop the functionality in the compiler and rely on the kernel setting the flag like it's supposed to do.
Now, I see why the kernels have not been setting the flag. Why should they when the compiler was doing it? Time to set things right though... in the interests of portability with other environments and compilers. Having the kernels setting the flag starting now would satisfy ABI compatibility with the other compilers AND having gcc continue to cover the flag, by default for a time, would prevent breakage of alot of existing code.
Seems like a no brainer to me. After all, isn't that what deprecation is for?
Bigstrat2003 said: "And why you would want to have 2 users logged on at the same time is rather beyond me, but I'll concede that it's something that'd make sense to implement."
It's called Multiuser. Many people can share the same machine. Also, it makes creating users and testing their logins without having to logout of root/admin mode possible.
Oh, and you can login yourself into the machine more that once which does have it's uses. Utility is the key. Since each login has it's own environment and process tree, if I do something in one login that abends then I might lose that login while the other keeps running. It's easier for me to get things done in Linux than in Windows - when I kill a program, it dies without telling me I can't kill it. Windows has come a long way since the Win9x days - problem is, it's MS who is making the engineering decisions based on marketing data and industry politics rather than sound engineering principles.
Hmm... I was under the impression that space was largely filled with void and a few trace hydrogen molecules aside from dust and cosmic rays. More hydrogen density as you get closer to a gravity well and possibly some helium too.
Now, if this guy smelled a metallic sweet smell, I'd have to ask is it not the material of the space suits slowly breaking down from it's exposure to space?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, he did specify "wireless" so digging a ditch and laying a wire was not part of the question.
As for wireless, I'm assuming tuned directional antennae would probably do the trick; they'd have to be LOS too.
Thank you for your reply lacking in content though it may have been.
Please explain your term "dhimmi-wannabes" so that we might understand it more fully.
Here's a few hypothetical questions:
If a guy of one ethnic group drives by a group of another ethnicity and displays some symbol that the group doesn't like, does that automatically give the group the right to riot?
If the group doesn't riot is it not a hate crime?
If they do riot, is the guy guilty of hate crime?
Is rioting a form of democratic political expression? Or is it a hate crime itself?
Jah-Wren Ryel said:
"Explain to us how YOU can believe that those quotes, some of them mistranslated and all of them completely out of context, have any meaning at all except to provide you with a shovel to dig yourself deeper and deeper."
Ok,so OeLeWaPpErKe gave eight consecutive clauses. Rather than naysay him, provide instead context which proves him wrong.
This is getting interesting...
So, can the National Post be litigated because they reported on the litigation and divulged some of the dialogue?
OMG!~ Can *I* be litigated because I asked the previous question?
Use PASCAL for your code examples:
{ = BEGIN
} = END
Problem solved. >:)
I don't consider these: Structured Programming, PASCAL obsolete.
We need more structure in our programming not less; these days there's too much crappy unstructured code. Even object-oriented programming can benefit from structure - otherwise, it begins to look too much like goto style. PASCAL is just a great example of structure.
Mr. McBride's comments excerpted:
"when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist. "
Linux Application Development
"Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them]."
POSIX not UNIX and since when does compatibility mean there is no difference?
You are cherry picking scripture out of context. You failed to mention that GOD found the people that were living in the area GOD intended for the Isrealites were an abomination to GOD.
GOD compares the human population to the harvest. There are weeds and there is good grain. The weeds have chosen to be weeds and refuse to change. The Isrealites were to take the place of the weeds and not adopt their culture and become weeds themselves.
Read the whole thing and not just a few verses my AC friend.
That aside, the BIBLE itself is a work of literature that has survived largely intact due to the work of competent archivists over the centuries. A proof of concept that data, science, history and literature etc... can be preserved by using current media containing old data by competent archivists.
viol8 said:
"So in 100 years time, building a CD player from 1st principals could well be a tough call!"
Good point. So, one would need to store the data necessary to recreate the device (or a software virtual machine) and it's algorithms. This would need to be done along with an extensive Rosetta Stone type archive so that the data would be readable.
We need to take a lesson from the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance. What mediums survived? How readable were they? How useful were they?
Let's not burn our libraries this time.
Storing Data For the Next 1,000 Years, at least using today's technology, is not necessary. We will only need to store data for a maximum of 10 years using today's technology - if that.
By then, today's technology will be yesterday's technology; a better way will have been found to store the data more reliably, safely and cheaply.
Take for instance:
cellulose film and it's breakdown and loss of so many old movies
old photographs and their fading
old floppy disks
ANY medium you use even stone is going to deteriorate. What we need is highly trained and compensated archivists; the new breed of librarians. They must be given the tools they need to oversee the mass of knowledge entrusted to them and to effectively utilize technology to achieve that end.
"Fifty years later natural sheep, bulls and pigs will be extinct apart from zoos because there will be no reason to breed them."
All in the name of preventing cruelty I'd assume?
Just how threatening is a meat Popsicle? Have you ever seen ATHF?
:)
Anyway, if PETA wants in vitro meat, they must remember that living meat is made of LIVING ANIMAL CELLS. Killing them would be wrong!
Codifex
AC (tm) said:
"Microsoft wants FreeBSD dead."
WTH? Are you crazy? Why would they? They've shown time and time again that they'll take BSD code and incorporate it. It's a free ride man.
The BSD guys write the code, the MS/Apple guys take the code and profit. It's a sweet deal for them.
Killing BSD would be like biting the hand that feeds you.
Your points:
1) When Microsoft unloads on GNU/Linux - a place to go to would be gone.
Microsoft is already unloading on Linux. Linux ain't dyin - far from it.
Microsoft is profiting from Linux via it's agreement with Novell.
2) Hurts Apple.
BSD is not going away either no matter what MS does. They're not coding primarily for the money but for the purity and freedom of the code itself.
MS profits from Apple - they own stock in the company.
Microsoft is a corporation with shareholders also. They have to satisfy their own shareholders.
ShOw Me ThE mOnEy! (from the Cameron Crowe movie Jerry Maguire)
"ISO standards don't have to be complete and don't have to work."
A standard that is not complete is ambiguous and one that does not work is useless.
I realize the ISO Organization is imperfect but what process with humans involved isn't? Let's hope that sanity, intelligence and good engineering prevail in this Microsoft OOOXML standardization attempt.
Color me confused on this one but...
Isn't a standard supposed to mean that there is a STANDARD way of doing things? i.e. Henceforth, any document creation tool that adheres to a standard is required to implement that standard as set forth in official standard documents. The standards have to be published in an implementable format in it's entirety? Documents created with one standards adherent tool are required to be inter operable in an official standards adherent tool and vice-versa.
If MS doesn't publish the fully implementable OOXML standard document then it will not be implementable and as such will not be a true standard - defeating their own standards compliance?
It's possible this one could backfire on MS if they don't implement their own standard to standards compliance. If they do implement their own standard and fully publish the standard then we all win - MS will be footing the bill for maintenance of the standard. Could be win-win for us all in the long run.
Shop smart! Shop SMart!
maestroX said:
".reffid ot geb I"
Now why did no one find this funny? Sorry MaestroX, we forgot to flip your flag.
Sorry bro,
Ok, I read the article and alot of the comments.
Seems to me the easy and correct thing to do would be to use deprecation. i.e. keep the old functionality for a bit longer and also patch or make the new kernels properly set the flag right now. This way, we move in the right direction and when it's no longer an issue then we drop the functionality in the compiler and rely on the kernel setting the flag like it's supposed to do.
Now, I see why the kernels have not been setting the flag. Why should they when the compiler was doing it? Time to set things right though... in the interests of portability with other environments and compilers. Having the kernels setting the flag starting now would satisfy ABI compatibility with the other compilers AND having gcc continue to cover the flag, by default for a time, would prevent breakage of alot of existing code.
Seems like a no brainer to me. After all, isn't that what deprecation is for?
That's my take on it...
Bigstrat2003 said:
"And why you would want to have 2 users logged on at the same time is rather beyond me, but I'll concede that it's something that'd make sense to implement."
It's called Multiuser. Many people can share the same machine. Also, it makes creating users and testing their logins without having to logout of root/admin mode possible.
Oh, and you can login yourself into the machine more that once which does have it's uses. Utility is the key. Since each login has it's own environment and process tree, if I do something in one login that abends then I might lose that login while the other keeps running. It's easier for me to get things done in Linux than in Windows - when I kill a program, it dies without telling me I can't kill it. Windows has come a long way since the Win9x days - problem is, it's MS who is making the engineering decisions based on marketing data and industry politics rather than sound engineering principles.
YMMV,
Your insite :P is amazing!
By the way, is this another indication that "Linux has arrived"?
I agree.
I use Linux because:
It's powerful, stable, simple, configurable, inexpensive, open, accessible... in short, everything that Windows is not.
The ONLY reason I still use windows at all is because the workplace wont let me use Linux on my desktop and I run some windows only games at home.
Down with proprietary lock-in mechanisms!
Looks like Tom Clancy and his pals weren't too far off the mark. It's shapin up to be a mighty cyber future.
Hmm... I was under the impression that space was largely filled with void and a few trace hydrogen molecules aside from dust and cosmic rays. More hydrogen density as you get closer to a gravity well and possibly some helium too.
Now, if this guy smelled a metallic sweet smell, I'd have to ask is it not the material of the space suits slowly breaking down from it's exposure to space?
But hey, he's been there and I haven't.