Nothing's been committed to CVS in a few months. One of the developers has a blog, and he said he'd be busy with other things through the end of September, but even so, it's been three weeks since. The dev mailing list has only had five posts in October to date.
New code is not necessary, but I for one wouldn't mind hearing something---anything---recent.
Oh, OK. I misunderstood "People for who I installed linux, say the following is missing". It seemed as though he made several mistakes, when in fact he made only one, "who" instead of "whom". I mean, when someone uses the formalism of placing the preposition in front of the relative pronoun instead of at the end of the clause, is it not reasonable to expect this person to also use the objective case of said relative pronoun?
A solution I liked was to make the publicly-editable entries into an unstable branch, and to promote versions of pages that have been fact-checked and have been agreed to be up to Wikipedia standards into a stable branch. Redirect anonymous viewers to stable pages if available, and mark each version as to which branch it belongs to.
Everything except for the second item is extremely difficult, because they rely on proprietary formats and protocols. The NTFS support we have to date only exists because people undertook the Herculean effort to reverse-engineer the way it stores information on disk. Some formats of media files are also proprietary; and so that we don't have to reverse engineer them immediately, we use modified binary libraries; however, we cannot officially package these with distros, because any distro doing so is a big fat target for a lawsuit, as the licenses of the codecs usually prohibit it. Any support for MSN messaging also exists only because someone reverse-engineered the protocol. Tying MSN into existing free file transfer and video chat facilities is something no-one may have gotten around to yet.
In case you don't notice a pattern: the half-complete capabilities mentioned here were attained through reverse engineering, a very laborious, time-consuming process; and in the cases where a shortcut has been taken, there are usually legal disincentives and prohibitions to doing so.
Collective ownership is far more natural to the human mind than private ownership.
That the human mind is often not in control is the reason for private property. If you have ever lived in a communal environment, you would know this. Individuals have times where they cause externalities (e.g., damaging collective property), some individuals are always causing externalities, and nobody ever---EVER!---wants to clean the bathrooms; and I don't even want to start about the mystery owner of the facial (or worse) hair clogging the drain in the shower. Everyone (well, mostly everyone) wants the group property undamaged, but everyone also has different priorities and cares for different things.
But ideas, of course, do not have the same (ahem) properties as physical property (e.g., use appreciates them, rather than depreciates), which is why the Tragedy of the Commons doesn't exist for them. In fact, this opposite you mention is the case for ideas, for use of them requires the human mind.
Actually, I personally would say that this attitude of idea-as-property goes all the way back to the Berne Convention which, while introducing some good ideas, put us in the public-domain-killing mess we're in now. Of course, they offered no proof that any of the strong controls imposed would be beneficial (to anyone but the publisher, of course). Of course, I offer no proof that was the case either---but at least my words are opinion, and not at all binding.
Realistically, AC, the first burden of proof is on our side, as we are the ones seeking change from the present, regardless of how we arrived presently.
I think such proof already exists in part, but the volume of it needs to be expanded greatly, and it probably needs to be compiled into one source.
Warrants unsealed last week revealed that agents in September seized computers, laptops, financial records and disks from the 8,000-square-foot home of Alan M. Ralsky.
is showing me the readability score(s) of a document. Not that it's actually very useful, but like any other person with any other score, I like getting a high one.
int array[8]; int *int_ptr = malloc(8 * sizeof(int)); char string[] = "Hello world!"; char *char_ptr = "Hello world!";
sizeof(array) == 8 * sizeof(int); sizeof(int_ptr) == sizeof(int *); You can get int_ptr to point to another location in memory (such as doing ++int_ptr); the similar statement (++array) is illegal.
I think that altering individual characters of char_ptr is undefined (as it would result in changing the value of the literal string), while (as above) string cannot be pointed to a new literal string.
1. I can block it more easily. 2. Fewer stupid people will passively receive ads than with TV, per ad dollar spent. It's better that they waste their money online. 3. Dollars spent on ad space will be far more distributed and to substantially less rich people, effectively redistributing income. At least, the money is much less likely to end up in the pocketbooks of Big Media. Yay, capitalism and (partial) socioeconomic justice at the same time!
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of rice, where can you get Type-R stickers and spinning rims that small?
UTC for everyone!
Could have been the placebo effect. :)
There are many other enjoyable Flash animations. You just have to find the gems among the tripe.
I just noticed that a few things have been committed to CVS in the past week. Yay!
And just when I think that I've done enough fact-checking...
Nothing's been committed to CVS in a few months. One of the developers has a blog, and he said he'd be busy with other things through the end of September, but even so, it's been three weeks since. The dev mailing list has only had five posts in October to date.
New code is not necessary, but I for one wouldn't mind hearing something---anything---recent.
Oh, OK. I misunderstood "People for who I installed linux, say the following is missing". It seemed as though he made several mistakes, when in fact he made only one, "who" instead of "whom". I mean, when someone uses the formalism of placing the preposition in front of the relative pronoun instead of at the end of the clause, is it not reasonable to expect this person to also use the objective case of said relative pronoun?
Yay heuristics!
Well, maybe it would happen, but not very quickly. I'm currently pressed for time.
Insightful, but extremely Pessimistic
Why do you even bother posting that in the first place? Why go through the trouble of trying to convince the rest of us to consider your view?
People seek to educate and learn because it makes us feel good. If knowledge were merely a matter of cost/benefit, it wouldn't happen.
And stop it with the melodramatic persecution complex.
A solution I liked was to make the publicly-editable entries into an unstable branch, and to promote versions of pages that have been fact-checked and have been agreed to be up to Wikipedia standards into a stable branch. Redirect anonymous viewers to stable pages if available, and mark each version as to which branch it belongs to.
Everything except for the second item is extremely difficult, because they rely on proprietary formats and protocols. The NTFS support we have to date only exists because people undertook the Herculean effort to reverse-engineer the way it stores information on disk. Some formats of media files are also proprietary; and so that we don't have to reverse engineer them immediately, we use modified binary libraries; however, we cannot officially package these with distros, because any distro doing so is a big fat target for a lawsuit, as the licenses of the codecs usually prohibit it. Any support for MSN messaging also exists only because someone reverse-engineered the protocol. Tying MSN into existing free file transfer and video chat facilities is something no-one may have gotten around to yet.
In case you don't notice a pattern: the half-complete capabilities mentioned here were attained through reverse engineering, a very laborious, time-consuming process; and in the cases where a shortcut has been taken, there are usually legal disincentives and prohibitions to doing so.
Collective ownership is far more natural to the human mind than private ownership.
That the human mind is often not in control is the reason for private property. If you have ever lived in a communal environment, you would know this. Individuals have times where they cause externalities (e.g., damaging collective property), some individuals are always causing externalities, and nobody ever---EVER!---wants to clean the bathrooms; and I don't even want to start about the mystery owner of the facial (or worse) hair clogging the drain in the shower. Everyone (well, mostly everyone) wants the group property undamaged, but everyone also has different priorities and cares for different things.
But ideas, of course, do not have the same (ahem) properties as physical property (e.g., use appreciates them, rather than depreciates), which is why the Tragedy of the Commons doesn't exist for them. In fact, this opposite you mention is the case for ideas, for use of them requires the human mind.
Over the past few years, we have lost a few well-designed platforms (Alpha, PA-RISC, PowerPC) to the x86
Who said POWER is dead? Netcraft?
Just because Apple drops PPC doesn't mean that the architecture is dead or dying.
Actually, I personally would say that this attitude of idea-as-property goes all the way back to the Berne Convention which, while introducing some good ideas, put us in the public-domain-killing mess we're in now. Of course, they offered no proof that any of the strong controls imposed would be beneficial (to anyone but the publisher, of course). Of course, I offer no proof that was the case either---but at least my words are opinion, and not at all binding.
Fixed that for you.
Realistically, AC, the first burden of proof is on our side, as we are the ones seeking change from the present, regardless of how we arrived presently.
I think such proof already exists in part, but the volume of it needs to be expanded greatly, and it probably needs to be compiled into one source.
Warrants unsealed last week revealed that agents in September seized computers, laptops, financial records and disks from the 8,000-square-foot home of Alan M. Ralsky.
Apparently, he is getting due process.
That's true, but nerve cells reproduce so rarely that they should have much more life remaining than other cells.
I wasn't really referring to neurons, but all everyday cells that regularly replenish themselves.
What about telomeres? Without replenishing them, most somatic cells will eventually stop reproducing. (IANAMolecularBiologist, however.)
is showing me the readability score(s) of a document. Not that it's actually very useful, but like any other person with any other score, I like getting a high one.
No, the Causeway is many feet above the level of Lake Pontchartrain. The bridge never was under water.
(No, you're not funny either.)
But it does not by necessity infringe on their rights.
And in cases where rights conflict, that's why we have judges and courts.
int array[8];
int *int_ptr = malloc(8 * sizeof(int));
char string[] = "Hello world!";
char *char_ptr = "Hello world!";
sizeof(array) == 8 * sizeof(int);
sizeof(int_ptr) == sizeof(int *);
You can get int_ptr to point to another location in memory (such as doing ++int_ptr); the similar statement (++array) is illegal.
I think that altering individual characters of char_ptr is undefined (as it would result in changing the value of the literal string), while (as above) string cannot be pointed to a new literal string.
From the site: Status: We have been under a slashdot like effect all day. After being featured on http://www.engadget.com/ http://www.hackaday.com/ http://digg.com/ http://qj.net/ and a bunch of other sites or PSP crashes every couple of minutes.
Well now you get the Real Thing!
1. I can block it more easily.
2. Fewer stupid people will passively receive ads than with TV, per ad dollar spent. It's better that they waste their money online.
3. Dollars spent on ad space will be far more distributed and to substantially less rich people, effectively redistributing income. At least, the money is much less likely to end up in the pocketbooks of Big Media. Yay, capitalism and (partial) socioeconomic justice at the same time!
Why, again, would this not be an improvement?