to the point that we think and the computer picks it up
Holy Shit I hope not. How often does your mind wander at work, (right now for instance)? How would you like it if you thought, damn she's hot when someone new walks by, and instantly your computer attaches to some porn site catering to what you found hot about her? How often do you think things that you can not say out loud, do you want that broadcast via whatever your computer decided to do with that information?
If that happens, I forsee a lot of unemployed people.
Numerous commercial apps seem to install fine on just about any distro without a unified package manager or installation API, I have used Oracle on Linux (Mandrake 8, Redhat 7.3 and 8, Slackware 9) and VMWare (Redhat and Slackware) with no problems at all. I don't see that having different install mecanisms for the base distro and related tools prevents Adobe from making a Linux Photoshop port.
Why do you think the HURD is more important right now then a footnote in a Debian story? That said I don't think that every rc and minor point release of Linux needs to be front page either.
just because we are competing with proprietary software on issues of technical merit doesn't mean we think people should choose the program for source control based on technical qualities alone. That would mean assigning zero value to freedom itself. If you value freedom, you will resist the temptation to use a program that takes away your freedom, whatever technical advantages it may have.
Proprietary software is unethical, because it denies the user the basic freedom to control her own computer and to cooperate. It may also be of low quality or insecure, but that's a secondary issue. I will reject it even if it is the best quality in the world, simply because I value my freedom too much to give it up for that.
That is in addition to the constant insistance on not useing binary drivers for hardware, which is also again in that article. The only freedom that I'm interested in is the freedom to choose what works. I don't need to see the source, it is useless to me. If it doesn't work or it only partially does what I need it to, it might as well not exist.
The biggest complaint that I have is he does indeed change his mind on things, he has become more and more extreem in his views. He used to say that it was understandable to use closed software when there was no complete alternative. Then he said it was understandable if you moved to OSS when it became useful, now he states that you should never used closed software that works, and always choose OSS even when it doesn't work or do what you need it to do. The fact that he hasn't had a job for some time now and is given money shows, his views have very little practicality. Now in this interview he says he doesn't know if its good or not to use GCC and releated tools to create open and closed software. I'll put money that in less then 5 years that will change to it is harmfull and there might even be talk of changing the GPL to dissalow it, though it might not be followed.
...you would think even a not-so-clever user would start to notice... I would doubt it. To most people the bios output is just a bunch of text, as long as there is text and it doesn't stop, the system is working. Most people don't look at what it says.
Isn't that true about anything though. Go get some really detailed explanations of the Mercury Gemini or Apollo capsules, or the space shuttle, its amazing that anything that complex can be made to work right just about every time. Hell, look at the details of child birth, and the millions of things that can go wrong if every tiny little detail doesn't happen perfectly the first time. Its amazing that there are children born at all.
Windows doesn't do anything special that its surprising that it works any more then its surprising that any OS ever works.
People use webmail, and online calendaring and collaboration software all the time, this is no different. Since software is hardly a tangible property when they download stuff anyway, as long as they own their computer, they'll be happy. A salesperson saying 'and you don't even have to install anything yourself,' will go a long way.
The programmer is not supposed to assume that they always get the data they expect. Functions exist to take no more then the size of the buffer. There are functions to validate the input and output. You don't have to know every damn thing about a system and you don't have to throw out standard API's, you need less stupid programmers. They need to understand the ideas of the system, not the entire system from the ground up. API's, abstractions and whatever else you can think of are great things, as long as the programmer isn't a lazy idiot who makes far too many mistakes that they shouldn't be making. Being a security minded programmer should not mean reinventing the wheel for everything.
BTW, there is always an 'open door' at the core, otherwise you haven't hit what's being protected, you just hit another layer of security.
There used to be several channels like this, PBS, Discovery, National Geographic, I remember watching a 2-3 hour Nova special on Voyager 2 and that was the greatest thing I had ever seen, the rose and superball in liquid nitrogen was quite good too. The nice thing was that when they appealed to people who wanted to know, they had shows that went in depth, and others that were more for those who were interested but didn't have the time to get all of the background before hand.
Guess what, that type of TV station doesn't make money now, its not what the majority want. Personally I never thought very highly of TechTV ever anyway and I don't see how you can call it in depth coverage, it was a glossing over of everything just as much as the evening news is and I don't understand what everyones love affair with the cast members is but format failed and went where it has for the same reason Discovery plays that god awful monster garage and National Geographic has reality shows, that format makes far more money then appealing to a small segment of the population.
What have these games listed brought to the table that is innovative compared to the other games released this year, or from the look of some of them, 10 years ago?
Hm, lets see elucidate v. elucidated, elucidating, elucidates
v. tr.
To make clear or plain, especially by explanation; clarify.
v. intr.
To give an explanation that serves to clarify. See Synonyms at explain. make clear and (more) comprehensible; "clarify the mystery surrounding her death" [syn: clarify, clear up] [ant: obfuscate] 2: make free from confusion or ambiguity; make clear; "Could you clarify these remarks?"; "Clear up the question of who is at fault" [syn: clear, clear up, shed light on, crystallize, crystallise, crystalize, crystalise, straighten out, sort out, enlighten, illuminate]
Wow, look at all those synonyms.
ever had an "ah-ha" moment I believe the word your looking for is eureka.
If your looking for a word to make you look superior to others you might want to look for more words, elucidate exactly means to explain.
The EU's actions have done next to nothing, IE is not loosing market share. It may not be the primary browser as an application for quite as many people but it is embedded in a hell of a lot of apps, its not going anywhere. MS has in no way lost any of the server market. Linux share of it is growing, but its not eating into WIndows profits. Linux is more often deployed where UNIX would have been, not Windows.
I would like some of what your smoking though, that seems to be some good stuff.
There is as much complete and total crap coming out of Hollywood as there is from the lesser known studios and so called art houses. A great number of people who watch said art house movies do it simply to appear more intellegent and sophisticated, furthered by the 'if you dont like it your obviously to stupid to understand it' bullshit.
Art house films leave normal people feeling queasy not because they are more honest, but because they were designed to, that is their gimmic. Its not a matter of getting you to think, but to shock you as much as they can while attempting to maintain the veneer of sophistication. Your not special because you watch independant films.
Having some 'noise' in the background makes often the environment around you more comfortable to work in. I set up a streaming server so I could listen to my mp3's at work.
PAM, pam_krb5, pam_ldap. Have Fun, I would recommend picking up Kerberos: The Definitive Guide before even considering going this route. Samba uses kerberos/OpenLDAP to talk to the Active Directory, but the details are hidden. Doing it yourself will quickly lead to the realization that Kerberos is no small subject.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy Shit I hope not. How often does your mind wander at work, (right now for instance)? How would you like it if you thought, damn she's hot when someone new walks by, and instantly your computer attaches to some porn site catering to what you found hot about her? How often do you think things that you can not say out loud, do you want that broadcast via whatever your computer decided to do with that information?
If that happens, I forsee a lot of unemployed people.
Numerous commercial apps seem to install fine on just about any distro without a unified package manager or installation API, I have used Oracle on Linux (Mandrake 8, Redhat 7.3 and 8, Slackware 9) and VMWare (Redhat and Slackware) with no problems at all. I don't see that having different install mecanisms for the base distro and related tools prevents Adobe from making a Linux Photoshop port.
I wonder how often something called Ignorent Housewife Edition' would be downloaded?
Why do you think the HURD is more important right now then a footnote in a Debian story? That said I don't think that every rc and minor point release of Linux needs to be front page either.
Or rather, Plan-9
just because we are competing with proprietary software on issues of technical merit doesn't mean we think people should choose the program for source control based on technical qualities alone. That would mean assigning zero value to freedom itself. If you value freedom, you will resist the temptation to use a program that takes away your freedom, whatever technical advantages it may have.
Proprietary software is unethical, because it denies the user the basic freedom to control her own computer and to cooperate. It may also be of low quality or insecure, but that's a secondary issue. I will reject it even if it is the best quality in the world, simply because I value my freedom too much to give it up for that.
That is in addition to the constant insistance on not useing binary drivers for hardware, which is also again in that article. The only freedom that I'm interested in is the freedom to choose what works. I don't need to see the source, it is useless to me. If it doesn't work or it only partially does what I need it to, it might as well not exist.
The biggest complaint that I have is he does indeed change his mind on things, he has become more and more extreem in his views. He used to say that it was understandable to use closed software when there was no complete alternative. Then he said it was understandable if you moved to OSS when it became useful, now he states that you should never used closed software that works, and always choose OSS even when it doesn't work or do what you need it to do. The fact that he hasn't had a job for some time now and is given money shows, his views have very little practicality. Now in this interview he says he doesn't know if its good or not to use GCC and releated tools to create open and closed software. I'll put money that in less then 5 years that will change to it is harmfull and there might even be talk of changing the GPL to dissalow it, though it might not be followed.
...you would think even a not-so-clever user would start to notice...
I would doubt it. To most people the bios output is just a bunch of text, as long as there is text and it doesn't stop, the system is working. Most people don't look at what it says.
Isn't that true about anything though. Go get some really detailed explanations of the Mercury Gemini or Apollo capsules, or the space shuttle, its amazing that anything that complex can be made to work right just about every time. Hell, look at the details of child birth, and the millions of things that can go wrong if every tiny little detail doesn't happen perfectly the first time. Its amazing that there are children born at all.
Windows doesn't do anything special that its surprising that it works any more then its surprising that any OS ever works.
Goldfinger isn't very recent.
People use webmail, and online calendaring and collaboration software all the time, this is no different. Since software is hardly a tangible property when they download stuff anyway, as long as they own their computer, they'll be happy. A salesperson saying 'and you don't even have to install anything yourself,' will go a long way.
A bullshit excuse was given for why they couldn't simply copy stuff over and someone called it. Suck it up and quit your whining.
The programmer is not supposed to assume that they always get the data they expect. Functions exist to take no more then the size of the buffer. There are functions to validate the input and output. You don't have to know every damn thing about a system and you don't have to throw out standard API's, you need less stupid programmers. They need to understand the ideas of the system, not the entire system from the ground up. API's, abstractions and whatever else you can think of are great things, as long as the programmer isn't a lazy idiot who makes far too many mistakes that they shouldn't be making. Being a security minded programmer should not mean reinventing the wheel for everything.
BTW, there is always an 'open door' at the core, otherwise you haven't hit what's being protected, you just hit another layer of security.
There used to be several channels like this, PBS, Discovery, National Geographic, I remember watching a 2-3 hour Nova special on Voyager 2 and that was the greatest thing I had ever seen, the rose and superball in liquid nitrogen was quite good too. The nice thing was that when they appealed to people who wanted to know, they had shows that went in depth, and others that were more for those who were interested but didn't have the time to get all of the background before hand.
Guess what, that type of TV station doesn't make money now, its not what the majority want. Personally I never thought very highly of TechTV ever anyway and I don't see how you can call it in depth coverage, it was a glossing over of everything just as much as the evening news is and I don't understand what everyones love affair with the cast members is but format failed and went where it has for the same reason Discovery plays that god awful monster garage and National Geographic has reality shows, that format makes far more money then appealing to a small segment of the population.
What have these games listed brought to the table that is innovative compared to the other games released this year, or from the look of some of them, 10 years ago?
I'm thinking of making a top 10 of the top 10.
it doesn't just mean "to explain".
Hm, lets see
elucidate v. elucidated, elucidating, elucidates v. tr.
To make clear or plain, especially by explanation; clarify.
v. intr. To give an explanation that serves to clarify. See Synonyms at explain.
make clear and (more) comprehensible; "clarify the mystery surrounding her death" [syn: clarify, clear up] [ant: obfuscate]
2: make free from confusion or ambiguity; make clear; "Could you clarify these remarks?"; "Clear up the question of who is at fault" [syn: clear, clear up, shed light on, crystallize, crystallise, crystalize, crystalise, straighten out, sort out, enlighten, illuminate]
Wow, look at all those synonyms.
ever had an "ah-ha" moment
I believe the word your looking for is eureka.
If your looking for a word to make you look superior to others you might want to look for more words, elucidate exactly means to explain.
What planet do you live on?
The EU's actions have done next to nothing, IE is not loosing market share. It may not be the primary browser as an application for quite as many people but it is embedded in a hell of a lot of apps, its not going anywhere. MS has in no way lost any of the server market. Linux share of it is growing, but its not eating into WIndows profits. Linux is more often deployed where UNIX would have been, not Windows.
I would like some of what your smoking though, that seems to be some good stuff.
There is as much complete and total crap coming out of Hollywood as there is from the lesser known studios and so called art houses. A great number of people who watch said art house movies do it simply to appear more intellegent and sophisticated, furthered by the 'if you dont like it your obviously to stupid to understand it' bullshit.
Art house films leave normal people feeling queasy not because they are more honest, but because they were designed to, that is their gimmic. Its not a matter of getting you to think, but to shock you as much as they can while attempting to maintain the veneer of sophistication. Your not special because you watch independant films.
Yes, I find it somewhat ironic that a word that means to explain requires an explination and is not clear at all.
Why not? Oh wait, sorry, I forgot that all OSS projects are impenetrable fortresses of security.
Having some 'noise' in the background makes often the environment around you more comfortable to work in. I set up a streaming server so I could listen to my mp3's at work.
The only reason that I had to replace the 486 was that the disk controller failed on it, otherwise it would still be working away.
PAM, pam_krb5, pam_ldap. Have Fun, I would recommend picking up Kerberos: The Definitive Guide before even considering going this route. Samba uses kerberos/OpenLDAP to talk to the Active Directory, but the details are hidden. Doing it yourself will quickly lead to the realization that Kerberos is no small subject.
486/33 DX. Nothing but the best man.