I know that Maple simply keeps things in symbolic form until you ask it to do a floating point evaluation. It also has a lot of other cool features like generating code for C, Fortran, and Java.
The UI will scare people. Unfamiliar == Scary.
I assume you are referring to the 3d gui. The article makes it seem as if the 3d gui is sort of optional. It is slashdotted now, but I remember reading something like, "anything from a text console to a 3d gui." Either way, this definitely looks like a great step for operating systems.
I still recall the day my 8th grade physics teacher told the class, "Science doesn't suck." In his honor, I feel I must inform you that a vacuum does not suck matter into it, rather the matter sort of pushes itself into the vacuum.
Assuming that you are using PC-XINU, perhaps you could make a DOS boot disk and modify the autoexec.bat to run XINU. I'm not sure that this would all fit on a floppy though...
Attacking companies like a barbarian? I think not my friend. All they are saying is, "Tou are not the first to do this and therefore you cannot have a patent for it." This is the way the patent system is designed. I don't see anything wrong with this. Do you?
As if that was a justification for the ethical nightmares of human cloning
Well seeing that I am the previous poster, I feel I am an expert on my comment, and that is not what I was trying to say at all. What I was trying to say was that the original poster in this thread was using unjustified and ridiculous facts. I wasn't trying to justify human cloning, just saying that the original poster in the thread's was doing his best Al Gore impersonation.
Basically, do you believe (or whatever) in Open Source enough to bet your bank account on it?
What? If you have a bank account with this bank, you will still be putting your "faith" in the same software. The only difference is now you can look at the source code. I don't see how this tests anyone's faith in Open Source at all. Could you elaborate?
Others have pointed out the flaws in your argument, but I think that even your data is flawed. I have actually heard that it is REALLY hard to adopt a child. I know of a fairly wealthy couple who had to travel to Russia to find one. Do you have any support for your claim of "millions of children waiting to be adobted," because the number seems extremely inflated.
What a terribly typical and ignorant comment. I think Nader prefers Gore to Bush, but the difference, to him, is so small that it is completely negligable. Nader knew he wasn't going to win the election. That was not his goal. I'd say he was far more concerned with the elections 4, 8, 12,..., 4N years down the road. I'm not a huge Nader fan or anything, but I understand where he is coming form.
This is sort of related to your post but not directly. What I want to know is, why don't ALL the smaller parties get together and have their own debate? Everyone is so focused on getting Nader into the debate that they don't realize there are more than 3 candidates! This is, of course, better than thinking there are only 2 candidates;).
so unless you are...using it to teach a class, distributing it is copyright infringement.
What if I teach a commercial(on my part) class simply by giving people a copy of my notes after they pay a fee? It seems to me that this whole thing would fall under fair use of a copyrighted work. Why would you want to give out lecture information if you were not attempting to teach someone or a class?
I don't think this is a problem unique to online only content type businesses. I've heard numbers that like 90% of small businesses fail within 5 years. I don't know if those numbers are accurate, but the failure rate is high. The same thing is probably true for these small online businesses. It's not that providing online content for profit is a risky business...it is that business itself is risky. I am sure you could point to some successful online content only businesses if you looked around a bit.
I don't think colleges are trying to say that they don't know that Napster is being used. What they seem to be saying is that they don't know who is using Napster to trade copyrighted information. It doesn't make sense to just assume that everyone is using Napster illegally(ya know...that whole innocent until proven guilty thing). Since they can claim that they don't want to prevent people from using the service legally, they say they won't block Napster. I'd be willing to bet that the real reason is that the students would be pissed as hell though, and the administration doesn't want to deal with that;).
This is basically the point I am trying to make. Everyone is 100% CO. It seems to me that anyone who is an exact duplicate of another person(not like twins...like an exact duplicate including having the exact same experiences in life) will do exactly what their exact duplicate would do in the exact same situation. So basically, what you do is determined by your physical makeup(which is partially a result of genetics/etc and partially a result of what has happened to you in life...physical makeup to me also includes like the state of your brain) and what is currently happening. This seems to remove all choice from everything. It also seems to be true(IMHO), so I'm going to stop typing this comment now. This is not because I want to, but because I have no other choice;).
Yes, I would agree that by that standard NONE of use have a free choice! Pretty shocking isn't it;). That is really what I honestly believe. I have convinced a lot of people that this is true, but I don't feel like getting into it right now. If you are really interested, email me(omalled@purdue.edu).
What makes you think that I think "molding" your childs "free choice" is a bad thing? For the record, I don't think it is really a good thing or a bad thing. It is inevitable. If you tell your child not to do things, you mold him one way. If you let him do whatever he wants, you mold him another way. Everything that happens is inevitable;).
I think you also may have missed my point on that last post. What I was trying to say is that it is impossible for us to raise someone in a way that will not make them a Clockwork Orange. Now, we may not be able to force the specific behavior on a person like in a clockwork orange. However, we are forcing a behavior, just not one that we can predetermine(or postdetermine(is that a word?) for that matter).
Because, the truth about that is, that some will choose to be violent no matter what you do.
I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. You can manipulate a child into whatever you want them to be. Maybe the normal methods of making a child non-violent will not work for a specific child, but that certainly does not mean that there is _no_ way to make a child non-violent. Also, I would not cite a work of fiction(Lord of the Flies) in an attempt to report fact.
The bottom line is that everyone is essentially a Clockwork Orange, but everyone is a different Clockwork Orange. Thus, it appears as if no one is a Clockwork Orange, and we are all making our own decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that Maple simply keeps things in symbolic form until you ask it to do a floating point evaluation. It also has a lot of other cool features like generating code for C, Fortran, and Java.
The UI will scare people. Unfamiliar == Scary.
I assume you are referring to the 3d gui. The article makes it seem as if the 3d gui is sort of optional. It is slashdotted now, but I remember reading something like, "anything from a text console to a 3d gui." Either way, this definitely looks like a great step for operating systems.
I still recall the day my 8th grade physics teacher told the class, "Science doesn't suck." In his honor, I feel I must inform you that a vacuum does not suck matter into it, rather the matter sort of pushes itself into the vacuum.
500/40,000=1/80=.0125
This is a toughy but I am pretty sure that it is really $0.0125 per user.
Not that bad? IIRC, the "natural" unemployment rate is like 5% so I'd say its pretty damn good.
Assuming that you are using PC-XINU, perhaps you could make a DOS boot disk and modify the autoexec.bat to run XINU. I'm not sure that this would all fit on a floppy though...
I'd say that the supercables site has bigger problems than its "one-size" design. It continuously reloads for me with konqueror and mozilla.
I wish I had some mod points right now...that was pure genius...
I would think that two megacorporations would grow to take its place. They will probably be called micros~1 and micros~2.
You might want to check the warranty on your mice. They are probably covered for at least a year...
Attacking companies like a barbarian? I think not my friend. All they are saying is, "Tou are not the first to do this and therefore you cannot have a patent for it." This is the way the patent system is designed. I don't see anything wrong with this. Do you?
As if that was a justification for the ethical nightmares of human cloning
Well seeing that I am the previous poster, I feel I am an expert on my comment, and that is not what I was trying to say at all. What I was trying to say was that the original poster in this thread was using unjustified and ridiculous facts. I wasn't trying to justify human cloning, just saying that the original poster in the thread's was doing his best Al Gore impersonation.
Basically, do you believe (or whatever) in Open Source enough to bet your bank account on it?
What? If you have a bank account with this bank, you will still be putting your "faith" in the same software. The only difference is now you can look at the source code. I don't see how this tests anyone's faith in Open Source at all. Could you elaborate?
What? wtf does that have to do with anything?
Others have pointed out the flaws in your argument, but I think that even your data is flawed. I have actually heard that it is REALLY hard to adopt a child. I know of a fairly wealthy couple who had to travel to Russia to find one. Do you have any support for your claim of "millions of children waiting to be adobted," because the number seems extremely inflated.
RedHat I believe...
What a terribly typical and ignorant comment. I think Nader prefers Gore to Bush, but the difference, to him, is so small that it is completely negligable. Nader knew he wasn't going to win the election. That was not his goal. I'd say he was far more concerned with the elections 4, 8, 12, ..., 4N years down the road. I'm not a huge Nader fan or anything, but I understand where he is coming form.
This is sort of related to your post but not directly. What I want to know is, why don't ALL the smaller parties get together and have their own debate? Everyone is so focused on getting Nader into the debate that they don't realize there are more than 3 candidates! This is, of course, better than thinking there are only 2 candidates ;).
so unless you are...using it to teach a class, distributing it is copyright infringement.
What if I teach a commercial(on my part) class simply by giving people a copy of my notes after they pay a fee? It seems to me that this whole thing would fall under fair use of a copyrighted work. Why would you want to give out lecture information if you were not attempting to teach someone or a class?
I don't think this is a problem unique to online only content type businesses. I've heard numbers that like 90% of small businesses fail within 5 years. I don't know if those numbers are accurate, but the failure rate is high. The same thing is probably true for these small online businesses. It's not that providing online content for profit is a risky business...it is that business itself is risky. I am sure you could point to some successful online content only businesses if you looked around a bit.
I don't think colleges are trying to say that they don't know that Napster is being used. What they seem to be saying is that they don't know who is using Napster to trade copyrighted information. It doesn't make sense to just assume that everyone is using Napster illegally(ya know...that whole innocent until proven guilty thing). Since they can claim that they don't want to prevent people from using the service legally, they say they won't block Napster. I'd be willing to bet that the real reason is that the students would be pissed as hell though, and the administration doesn't want to deal with that ;).
This is basically the point I am trying to make. Everyone is 100% CO. It seems to me that anyone who is an exact duplicate of another person(not like twins...like an exact duplicate including having the exact same experiences in life) will do exactly what their exact duplicate would do in the exact same situation. So basically, what you do is determined by your physical makeup(which is partially a result of genetics/etc and partially a result of what has happened to you in life...physical makeup to me also includes like the state of your brain) and what is currently happening. This seems to remove all choice from everything. It also seems to be true(IMHO), so I'm going to stop typing this comment now. This is not because I want to, but because I have no other choice ;).
Yes, I would agree that by that standard NONE of use have a free choice! Pretty shocking isn't it ;). That is really what I honestly believe. I have convinced a lot of people that this is true, but I don't feel like getting into it right now. If you are really interested, email me(omalled@purdue.edu).
;).
What makes you think that I think "molding" your childs "free choice" is a bad thing? For the record, I don't think it is really a good thing or a bad thing. It is inevitable. If you tell your child not to do things, you mold him one way. If you let him do whatever he wants, you mold him another way. Everything that happens is inevitable
I think you also may have missed my point on that last post. What I was trying to say is that it is impossible for us to raise someone in a way that will not make them a Clockwork Orange. Now, we may not be able to force the specific behavior on a person like in a clockwork orange. However, we are forcing a behavior, just not one that we can predetermine(or postdetermine(is that a word?) for that matter).
Because, the truth about that is, that some will choose to be violent no matter what you do.
I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. You can manipulate a child into whatever you want them to be. Maybe the normal methods of making a child non-violent will not work for a specific child, but that certainly does not mean that there is _no_ way to make a child non-violent. Also, I would not cite a work of fiction(Lord of the Flies) in an attempt to report fact.
The bottom line is that everyone is essentially a Clockwork Orange, but everyone is a different Clockwork Orange. Thus, it appears as if no one is a Clockwork Orange, and we are all making our own decisions.