The pseudo-package is called 'build-essential'. It doesn't have everything, but it has alot. From Synaptic:
'informational list of build-essential packages
If you do not plan to build Debian packages, you don't need this
package. Moreover this package is not required for building Debian
packages.
This package contains an informational list of packages which are
considered essential for building Debian packages. This package also
depends on the packages on that list, to make it easy to have the
build-essential packages installed.
If you have this package installed, you only need to install whatever
a package specifies as its build-time dependencies to build the
package. Conversely, if you are determining what your package needs
to build-depend on, you can always leave out the packages this
package depends on.
This package is NOT the definition of what packages are
build-essential; the real definition is in the Debian Policy Manual.
This package contains merely an informational list, which is all
most people need. However, if this package and the manual disagree,
the manual is correct.'
Then why not try changing rocks into wine? Or chickens into hamsters? There was no theory saying those couldn't be done either. But you didn't see scientists trying to do it.
Just because no one can currently explain to me why I can't make tachyons out of Higgs particles doesn't mean I should waste my time trying.
Lead into gold was just some magic dream left over from the dark ages that, unfortunately, Newton wasted some time on.
No, most of the time there is some theory first. After some experiments the theory is modified, but it is hardly ever the case in modern physics where a whole theory has to be developed after an experiment.
Maybe in Newton's day it was the other way around, or more recently with Einstein's explanation of Brownian motion. But today, uh uh.
If this was an accepted method in the scientific community, we'd still be banging rocks against each other to make fire.
This is the accepted method in the scientific community. You have to walk before you can fly. You have to crawl before you can walk. The guy who came to my lab with a proposal for a tachyon converter wasn't a visionary, he was a nut who should have known today's limitations.
And your example of flying is flawed. Da Vinci saw things fly. He could see somewhat how they did it. It wasn't as unimaginable thing as converting lead to gold.
The facts you state make me feel he really was a little off, at least in this field.
Usually scientists try to achieve things that are one or two steps above where they are now. Something that has at least a bit of theory behind it. The fact that Newton was attempting something that was so obviously beyond reach, something that there wasn't even a theory for, points to a problem.
It would be like physicists of today actually trying to make anti-gravitons so we could fly around and repell stuff. Or biologists trying to raise the dead. Stuff so obviously impossible today as to be almost unimagninable.
He didn't distort the definition. He just stated what he admitted was his own opinion on what the most important part of free software is.
From TFA:
Now just to relay my bias, if you had to ask me what's the most important initial in free and open source software, to me, if you want to reach the broadest marketplace in the world there's one price that works for everyone, and that's free...
In addition, the only reason Itunes is as high as number 2 is that there are so many good p2p clients to choose from. All with enough users to get lots of music. With that kind of choice, and with the RIAA targeting the biggest ones, no single p2p client will ever get really huge.
If I recall correctly, the explanation in the book as to why the music industry supported it was that only a few people were music horders, going up and down highways looking for new music. Most poeple just sampled a bit when they happened to be on the road, but would buy music later so it actually increased music revenue.
Of course the RIAA doesn't buy that argument about current file sharing. Maybe if it were really hard to get the music out of your car they would be ok with it.
At the bottom of my desk drawer. But I encrypt them with a method I'll never forget. As long as no one else figures it out I can write them down and change them frequently if needed.
When I have enough money to make it worth the effort to steal it, maybe I'll get a better system. But even as it is I don't see how someone could figure out my system.
But soon there would be proprietary software built on top of what they get from Red Hat. That would not be GPL'd. Soon there could be a version of Linux that works flawlessly with Windows that's only available from Microsoft.
That would slow down the growth of other 'professional' distros trying to succeed in the enterprise market. Microsoft probably only cares about SuSE, RedHat, and one or two others. Not about MEPIS, Debian, or other community based distros.
Not that I think the buyout will happen. Just saying.
It's not that Pi is random or was ever though to be. But you can generate random (or not so random according to the article) numbers by picking out single digits from Pi.
So I could take, for example, every 14th digit in Pi and that would make a good random string of numbers between 0 and 9.
Face it, the ability to change operating system code is a benefit for.0001% of people and of absolutely no use to the other 99.9999% of people
That's just not true. I may never edit the source of a project or fork it. But I still benefit from the fact that others more knowledgeable than me can. Because of the forking and bugfixing that exists in the open source world I have: Firefox instead of Netscape or IE BMP instead of XMMS Xorg instead of Xfree Bug fixes that come faster than in the proprietary world
And I'm sure there's more that I'm just unaware of since I'm not a coder. A recent small example is that the latest Gnome didn't come with a menu editor. People complained and eventually a user (a non Gnome developer) made one. Now we're happy. Wouldn't have been so easy if they didn't have the code. See this article about how someone had to reverse engineer OSX just to get a desktop switcher. Which will probably become broken with the latest OSX release.
It's not a bill that tries to tip the field in any direction. It's what it sounds like. Anti-discriminatory. There are already laws against discrimination based on race and religion. This bill just extends them to sexual orientation.
I totally agree. The only time I have any trouble installing software is when I'm trying out some beta software that I have to compile myself. Which for average users would never happen. I really don't see why people still point to software installation as a Linux weak point.
Even commercial third party apps just dump a folder in/usr/local and are ready to run. I haven't tried that many but that's how it is with Doom3, AdobeReader, RealAudio and several free apps. Some you can just put in your home folder or desktop and run the executable from there. Real drag and drop. I have Cube (first person shooter) on a separate hard drive (no linking) and it runs fine.
And that's a good point about getting out of the Microsoft mindset. So many new users (including myself when I was one) want to go to a web page, download a program and run it. And it won't ever occur to them that the program was a few clicks away in their package manager.
What makes it different is that in the file sharing case there was never any threat of injury to a person. And the $2400 loss is a perceived or estimated loss, not actual cash out of a till that goes into the criminal's pocket.
A better analogy would be to see how much jail time I would get for stealing an idea from my employer that was estimated to be worth $2400 and releasing it to the public.
So when Joe Luser gets home with his computer and plugs it in he's ready to:
Open Excel and do some work? Watch some DVD's?
Browse the internet risk free?
No, he can't do any of those things "out of the box".
The number of computers being sold with Linux may be small now, but the ones that do come with everything Joe Luser needs, and when he sees that one computer (Windows) comes with nothing but the operating system, a mediaplayer and notepad he's going to opt for the full featured one.
As usual, the press extrapolates and exagerates. This stuff is very interesting, and deserves to be talked about. But not because it's connected to the advance of quantum computers.
Quantum computers, when they exist, will be good for several things: factoring large numbers, search algorithms, and simulating other quantum systems and maybe other things related. These are important things, but not what most people think of when they think of a computer.
This research is interesting because it's progress in understanding light matter interactions and quantum mechanics in general.
Slashdot Mirror
The one sold at walmart is usb 2.0
yes...
I'm not ashamed of my zealotry
In addition,
what OS were the other 39 vehicles using?
Still, good news, in that you can go Red or Blue and still be Linux true!"
I thought SUSE was green.
No, I don't have anything intelligent to add to the discussion.
The pseudo-package is called 'build-essential'. It doesn't have everything, but it has alot. From Synaptic:
'informational list of build-essential packages
If you do not plan to build Debian packages, you don't need this package. Moreover this package is not required for building Debian packages.
This package contains an informational list of packages which are considered essential for building Debian packages. This package also depends on the packages on that list, to make it easy to have the build-essential packages installed.
If you have this package installed, you only need to install whatever a package specifies as its build-time dependencies to build the package. Conversely, if you are determining what your package needs to build-depend on, you can always leave out the packages this package depends on.
This package is NOT the definition of what packages are build-essential; the real definition is in the Debian Policy Manual. This package contains merely an informational list, which is all most people need. However, if this package and the manual disagree, the manual is correct.'
much like the bottle caps you could see the bottoms of before buying, this scheme has an obvious flaw.
Just buy 100,000 songs and hey, free ipod!
Then why not try changing rocks into wine? Or chickens into hamsters? There was no theory saying those couldn't be done either. But you didn't see scientists trying to do it.
Just because no one can currently explain to me why I can't make tachyons out of Higgs particles doesn't mean I should waste my time trying.
Lead into gold was just some magic dream left over from the dark ages that, unfortunately, Newton wasted some time on.
No, most of the time there is some theory first. After some experiments the theory is modified, but it is hardly ever the case in modern physics where a whole theory has to be developed after an experiment.
Maybe in Newton's day it was the other way around, or more recently with Einstein's explanation of Brownian motion. But today, uh uh.
If this was an accepted method in the scientific community, we'd still be banging rocks against each other to make fire.
This is the accepted method in the scientific community. You have to walk before you can fly. You have to crawl before you can walk. The guy who came to my lab with a proposal for a tachyon converter wasn't a visionary, he was a nut who should have known today's limitations.
And your example of flying is flawed. Da Vinci saw things fly. He could see somewhat how they did it. It wasn't as unimaginable thing as converting lead to gold.
The facts you state make me feel he really was a little off, at least in this field.
Usually scientists try to achieve things that are one or two steps above where they are now. Something that has at least a bit of theory behind it. The fact that Newton was attempting something that was so obviously beyond reach, something that there wasn't even a theory for, points to a problem.
It would be like physicists of today actually trying to make anti-gravitons so we could fly around and repell stuff. Or biologists trying to raise the dead. Stuff so obviously impossible today as to be almost unimagninable.
He didn't distort the definition. He just stated what he admitted was his own opinion on what the most important part of free software is.
From TFA:
Now just to relay my bias, if you had to ask me what's the most important initial in free and open source software, to me, if you want to reach the broadest marketplace in the world there's one price that works for everyone, and that's free...
In addition, the only reason Itunes is as high as number 2 is that there are so many good p2p clients to choose from. All with enough users to get lots of music. With that kind of choice, and with the RIAA targeting the biggest ones, no single p2p client will ever get really huge.
If I recall correctly, the explanation in the book as to why the music industry supported it was that only a few people were music horders, going up and down highways looking for new music. Most poeple just sampled a bit when they happened to be on the road, but would buy music later so it actually increased music revenue.
Of course the RIAA doesn't buy that argument about current file sharing. Maybe if it were really hard to get the music out of your car they would be ok with it.
But a few of you fired off diatribes about how I'm either a Microsoft 'shill' or an Apple 'apologist'
Coming from an admitted Gnu/Linux zealot; Can't he be both?
At the bottom of my desk drawer. But I encrypt them with a method I'll never forget. As long as no one else figures it out I can write them down and change them frequently if needed.
When I have enough money to make it worth the effort to steal it, maybe I'll get a better system. But even as it is I don't see how someone could figure out my system.
But soon there would be proprietary software built on top of what they get from Red Hat. That would not be GPL'd. Soon there could be a version of Linux that works flawlessly with Windows that's only available from Microsoft.
That would slow down the growth of other 'professional' distros trying to succeed in the enterprise market. Microsoft probably only cares about SuSE, RedHat, and one or two others. Not about MEPIS, Debian, or other community based distros.
Not that I think the buyout will happen. Just saying.
So can any irrational be used to generate (semi)random numbers the same way Pi can? Or are some more random than others?
Maybe there could be an irrational number whose infinite string happened to only contain digits 0 to 5? Or had a much higher frequency of 2s?
It's not that Pi is random or was ever though to be. But you can generate random (or not so random according to the article) numbers by picking out single digits from Pi.
So I could take, for example, every 14th digit in Pi and that would make a good random string of numbers between 0 and 9.
Face it, the ability to change operating system code is a benefit for .0001% of people and of absolutely no use to the other 99.9999% of people
That's just not true. I may never edit the source of a project or fork it. But I still benefit from the fact that others more knowledgeable than me can. Because of the forking and bugfixing that exists in the open source world I have:
Firefox instead of Netscape or IE
BMP instead of XMMS
Xorg instead of Xfree
Bug fixes that come faster than in the proprietary world
And I'm sure there's more that I'm just unaware of since I'm not a coder. A recent small example is that the latest Gnome didn't come with a menu editor. People complained and eventually a user (a non Gnome developer) made one. Now we're happy. Wouldn't have been so easy if they didn't have the code. See this article about how someone had to reverse engineer OSX just to get a desktop switcher. Which will probably become broken with the latest OSX release.
Have you seen the bill?
It's not a bill that tries to tip the field in any direction. It's what it sounds like. Anti-discriminatory. There are already laws against discrimination based on race and religion. This bill just extends them to sexual orientation.
I totally agree. The only time I have any trouble installing software is when I'm trying out some beta software that I have to compile myself. Which for average users would never happen. I really don't see why people still point to software installation as a Linux weak point.
/usr/local and are ready to run. I haven't tried that many but that's how it is with Doom3, AdobeReader, RealAudio and several free apps. Some you can just put in your home folder or desktop and run the executable from there. Real drag and drop. I have Cube (first person shooter) on a separate hard drive (no linking) and it runs fine.
Even commercial third party apps just dump a folder in
And that's a good point about getting out of the Microsoft mindset. So many new users (including myself when I was one) want to go to a web page, download a program and run it. And it won't ever occur to them that the program was a few clicks away in their package manager.
What makes it different is that in the file sharing case there was never any threat of injury to a person. And the $2400 loss is a perceived or estimated loss, not actual cash out of a till that goes into the criminal's pocket.
A better analogy would be to see how much jail time I would get for stealing an idea from my employer that was estimated to be worth $2400 and releasing it to the public.
That was one person's impression. From what I've read about it, it works. No 'somewhat'.
So when Joe Luser gets home with his computer and plugs it in he's ready to:
Open Excel and do some work?
Watch some DVD's?
Browse the internet risk free?
No, he can't do any of those things "out of the box".
The number of computers being sold with Linux may be small now, but the ones that do come with everything Joe Luser needs, and when he sees that one computer (Windows) comes with nothing but the operating system, a mediaplayer and notepad he's going to opt for the full featured one.
As usual, the press extrapolates and exagerates. This stuff is very interesting, and deserves to be talked about. But not because it's connected to the advance of quantum computers.
Quantum computers, when they exist, will be good for several things: factoring large numbers, search algorithms, and simulating other quantum systems and maybe other things related. These are important things, but not what most people think of when they think of a computer.
This research is interesting because it's progress in understanding light matter interactions and quantum mechanics in general.