Why would you want a neutral reference system? Why should you even need one in this case?
It's just that I remember a part in the book where Ishmael asked the man (sorry, I can't remember his name) whether he agreed that the names "taker" and "leaver" didn't have any inherent negative or positive connotations, and the man agreed. I think that's a really biased question, and I also think that they do have inherent negative and positive connotations. It makes sense that you shouldn't need one, but you also shouldn't imply or say that it is neutral when it really isn't.
I generally consider this to be the worst book I ever read.
global taker culture
Added emphasis.
I really couldn't get past this. The whole taker/leaver thing is not in any way a neutral reference system, regardless of what Quinn would like you to believe. It's been a while (almost 4 years) since I read the book, so I can't really provide any concrete examples from the book. Add to this that the book shouldn't have been designed as fiction (and, in fact, originally wasn't), and I really wish I hadn't wasted those long, long hours trying to get through that book.
So, I'm assuming you mean you bought the low-sodium version. The regular version has more sodium per serving than regular iodized salt. The low-sodium version doesn't, but IIRC it's not that far away.
Barcodes printed on books are Bookland code, which is really the ISBN number of the book expressed as an EAN-13 barcode. Unless the books don't have valid ISBN numbers it is unlikely that there would be any conflicts between books.
All mass market paperbacks have a UPC code on the back. In order to reconstruct the ISBN from this code, you need both a second 5-digit bar code (found to the right of the UPC) and a look-up table to match UPC manufacturer id codes to ISBN publisher id codes. This is done because mass market editions are commonly sold at supermarkets and other places that may have old scanners incapable of reading EAN-13 codes.
These books will usually (always?) have the correct Bookland EAN inside the front cover, which is why you sometimes see bookstores scanning this code instead. The extra five digit code to the right of the EAN encodes the Suggested Retail Price, or 90000 if the SRP is not included.
Also, UPC allows for stores assigning their own UPCs without actually owning a block. All codes beginning with (I think) 4 (it may be another digit, I don't have time to look it up right now) are designated for the use of individuals. Thus, they aren't necessarily unique between two stores, but the store should be able to guarantee uniqueness within itself.
You're right. My opinion can be stated in a concise, simple manner. Here you go: I consider the OS to be the kernel, and the kernel alone. Everything else (everything from the GNU project) is, in my opinion, an application that runs on the OS to do something useful. By my definition, the OS doesn't have to be useful (ie, have a compiler, utilities to move files around, etc) to be an OS.
I will definitely grant that not everyone shares my opinion, I will admit that I see room for the opposite to my argument, and I will agree that mind-bogglingly was very exaggerated to make a point that was not particularly well thought out. I don't want to start a big argument, nor did I mean to imply that you or anyone else is stupid in any fashion simply because my opinion and yours are not the same. It's just that, according to my own definitions, which make sense to me, the OS is not GNU, regardless of how many of the actual utilities come from that project.
Sarge is the "nickname" for the current testing distribution. Unstable is always called "sid". It's also not, IMO, particularly unstable. I use it on both my desktop and my laptop every day.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you want a neutral reference system? Why should you even need one in this case?
It's just that I remember a part in the book where Ishmael asked the man (sorry, I can't remember his name) whether he agreed that the names "taker" and "leaver" didn't have any inherent negative or positive connotations, and the man agreed. I think that's a really biased question, and I also think that they do have inherent negative and positive connotations. It makes sense that you shouldn't need one, but you also shouldn't imply or say that it is neutral when it really isn't.
I generally consider this to be the worst book I ever read.
global taker culture
Added emphasis.
I really couldn't get past this. The whole taker/leaver thing is not in any way a neutral reference system, regardless of what Quinn would like you to believe. It's been a while (almost 4 years) since I read the book, so I can't really provide any concrete examples from the book. Add to this that the book shouldn't have been designed as fiction (and, in fact, originally wasn't), and I really wish I hadn't wasted those long, long hours trying to get through that book.
Spam ... (low-sodium
So, I'm assuming you mean you bought the low-sodium version. The regular version has more sodium per serving than regular iodized salt. The low-sodium version doesn't, but IIRC it's not that far away.
Barcodes printed on books are Bookland code, which is really the ISBN number of the book expressed as an EAN-13 barcode. Unless the books don't have valid ISBN numbers it is unlikely that there would be any conflicts between books.
All mass market paperbacks have a UPC code on the back. In order to reconstruct the ISBN from this code, you need both a second 5-digit bar code (found to the right of the UPC) and a look-up table to match UPC manufacturer id codes to ISBN publisher id codes. This is done because mass market editions are commonly sold at supermarkets and other places that may have old scanners incapable of reading EAN-13 codes.
These books will usually (always?) have the correct Bookland EAN inside the front cover, which is why you sometimes see bookstores scanning this code instead. The extra five digit code to the right of the EAN encodes the Suggested Retail Price, or 90000 if the SRP is not included.
Also, UPC allows for stores assigning their own UPCs without actually owning a block. All codes beginning with (I think) 4 (it may be another digit, I don't have time to look it up right now) are designated for the use of individuals. Thus, they aren't necessarily unique between two stores, but the store should be able to guarantee uniqueness within itself.
You're right. My opinion can be stated in a concise, simple manner. Here you go: I consider the OS to be the kernel, and the kernel alone. Everything else (everything from the GNU project) is, in my opinion, an application that runs on the OS to do something useful. By my definition, the OS doesn't have to be useful (ie, have a compiler, utilities to move files around, etc) to be an OS.
I will definitely grant that not everyone shares my opinion, I will admit that I see room for the opposite to my argument, and I will agree that mind-bogglingly was very exaggerated to make a point that was not particularly well thought out. I don't want to start a big argument, nor did I mean to imply that you or anyone else is stupid in any fashion simply because my opinion and yours are not the same. It's just that, according to my own definitions, which make sense to me, the OS is not GNU, regardless of how many of the actual utilities come from that project.
Sarge is the "nickname" for the current testing distribution. Unstable is always called "sid". It's also not, IMO, particularly unstable. I use it on both my desktop and my laptop every day.
Um, they *are* calling it GNU/NetBSD (see here). I won't even begin to rant about how mind-bogglingly stupid I consider this. It would take too long.