Please! Not reading the article I'm used to (i didn't read it either nor do i intend to), but could we atleast agree upon reading the first message the in the thread you are replying to. Then read my messages.
Ofcourse not, I imagine they keep the videos separate and then as you say, play them according to a playlist, the playlist could be saved and the individual videos, saving storage and adding historical informtion. Very little that is shown on tv is only shown once. For an even more extreme example I don't expect every channel worldwide to keep every re-run of some silly commercial (those aren't as you know listed in tv guide), but asking them to keep it once and keeping record of when it was aired isn't asking a lot imnsho. Watch an mtv 80:s weekend and see the deterioration already present on the videos, that's modern history fading away. Luckily they've now all switched to digital so don't think we'll see that happening again atlest not until there is some big leap in television technology.
I don't really see the problem if it isn't worth keeping on tape for a decade or two it probably wasn't worth bradcasting in the first place. As for indexing, i do see se it, particulary for old tapes so why not leave it with a minimum of information, "news footage year medium" and stuffit in a warehouse for a resonble time, if it becomes valuable for historical reasons (and frankly most stuff won't) you'll ofcourse have a cost associated with getting at it, but that cost varies over time (cost of furter storage on old medium vs old player going thru material, new medium new storage cost or just burning it), and that's not something that really can be determined at brodcast time or ought to be payed for then (just the initial medium and resonable storage time), that's for the future to decide.
I'm definitively with you on this one. In sweden just about any printed material, not only books but anything printed for circulation has to be donated to the royal library for archiving. The same should go for tv. Wasn't it just a year or so go that the bbc deleted some really unique top of the pops recordings, swedish state television has kept some truly amazing stuff (although they don't have to). Fighting for the right to throw historical mateial away just to dodge indecency complaint is just silly, and has this really happend since the vhs, I've only heard about this with regards to the Doors incedent (Jim was forbidden to sing "girl we couldn't get much higher", but may or may not have done so).
gcc is the single most important piece of free software ever made and supporting it by using it provides enough benefits to outway the saving of a few bytes and clock cycles, imagined or real increases in popularity of apps thereof included.
Branden ROCKS!!!, Martin seems like a nice guy and all that, but not in the slightest does he rock. Have you ever seen a guy that rocks, get elected?/Debian, reading Habermas so you don't have to.
Well, they got that stuff at McDonalds so that makes more sence but this licence covers stuff they: A.don't make and B.don't distribute. I'm sorry but i still just can't see the reason.
This just boggles my mind. Is the licence thought to have a detering effect on trojanmakers becourse they might have to pay court/lawyers cost when recivers of your trojan sue not you, but sun? Why would you blame sun for a trojan you got from somone else, and even if you did, wouldn't the licence have to be intact when you get it, or you'd be back to square one where sun's license only covers suns work and not trojanmakers.
Normally it is trademark that puts the restrictions on names and logos, and that's all fine and well even by debian standards. What has happend is that they used their copyright to put further restrictions on names and logos(ie by the power of (C) you may not)you are for instance not allowed to refer to the name firefox without written consent for disccussions like these. This doesn't really matter in the us becourse 1. They probably wouldn't wouldn't sue 2. even if they did you'd claim fair use.
problem is 1.fair use can only be used as defence once you're actually sued, 2.not everyone is in the us. 3. Having a bunch of users asking for permision to use the name firefox in slashdot comments is just plain stupid!(this might all seem a little harsh but in FLOSS communities users are depended upon as distributers and are thus subject to copyright)so what are you supposed to do, ignore it? Since they actually took the time to write it down you kind of get the creeping feeling that they really mean it, and _this_ is the annoying part. Debian could care less what the browser is called, they've offered to label it as an unoficial build, asked for another name to use, but this has been turned down and herein lies the problem.
Raise your voice on the appropriate debian mailing list or irc channel.(I however recommend finding some really, really good arguments first, you'll have to convince other people, trolling won't do neither will simple disagreement). But I'm quite sure you already knew that.
Try the new installer, and what do you mean no x, the installer (since woody atleast) runs tasksel just choose desktop or whatever it's called and there you go. (I remember my first install with the then unstable woody, trying to wrap my head around why it wanted to install a mail server, that was a problem).
Hurd=yes Stallman=no (I'm not the ac poster). Stallman removed a link to debian from somwhere on the fsf site sometime after the debcle where he endorsed that "free" distribution that turned out to include the nonfree nvidia drivers and him not beeing on speaking terms with branden becourse of the dfsg not agreeing with the freeness of gfdl.
If I hadn't squandered those modpoint (making sure i'll never get any other on this account:). I'd mod you up. (and grandparent wouldn't be a +4 informative).
Par archives is just a scam popularized by cluless usnet abusers. Think about it, if those files really could reconstruct a corrupt rar archive, why not post only the smaller par files (pigeon hole principle comp.compression faq)? What they do is just add redundansy. They contain the first and last parts of the rar archive, as those are the most likely to dissapear or not propagate. Get youself double copies and you'll be far better off, diffrent brands cd's/dvd's are easy, a backup hd is cheaper in the long run. (you could score a point by giving good reasons for the extra importance of first/last-part, but it's still just adding redundancy, and you can only get as much redundancy as you add or the technique would be better used as compression in the first place).
Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but you're not the only one being tricked by those par files.
There was a story a while back about a guy mounting two plates of alu to cool his hd that also did a great job silencing it, didn't seem that complicated.
The hardware compability lists are so outdated it's not even funny.If you're shopping for hardware don't look for compability first, it will make your head spinn. Decide what you'd like to have and then google (beware that very few hits can mean it's worked flawless. Kernel changelogs are always good, pay attention to who's kernel it is, it may not be mainline).
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't give you any two of those, let alone three.
Please! Not reading the article I'm used to (i didn't read it either nor do i intend to), but could we atleast agree upon reading the first message the in the thread you are replying to. Then read my messages.
Ofcourse not, I imagine they keep the videos separate and then as you say, play them according to a playlist, the playlist could be saved and the individual videos, saving storage and adding historical informtion. Very little that is shown on tv is only shown once. For an even more extreme example I don't expect every channel worldwide to keep every re-run of some silly commercial (those aren't as you know listed in tv guide), but asking them to keep it once and keeping record of when it was aired isn't asking a lot imnsho. Watch an mtv 80:s weekend and see the deterioration already present on the videos, that's modern history fading away. Luckily they've now all switched to digital so don't think we'll see that happening again atlest not until there is some big leap in television technology.
I don't really see the problem if it isn't worth keeping on tape for a decade or two it probably wasn't worth bradcasting in the first place. As for indexing, i do see se it, particulary for old tapes so why not leave it with a minimum of information, "news footage year medium" and stuffit in a warehouse for a resonble time, if it becomes valuable for historical reasons (and frankly most stuff won't) you'll ofcourse have a cost associated with getting at it, but that cost varies over time (cost of furter storage on old medium vs old player going thru material, new medium new storage cost or just burning it), and that's not something that really can be determined at brodcast time or ought to be payed for then (just the initial medium and resonable storage time), that's for the future to decide.
I'm definitively with you on this one. In sweden just about any printed material, not only books but anything printed for circulation has to be donated to the royal library for archiving. The same should go for tv. Wasn't it just a year or so go that the bbc deleted some really unique top of the pops recordings, swedish state television has kept some truly amazing stuff (although they don't have to). Fighting for the right to throw historical mateial away just to dodge indecency complaint is just silly, and has this really happend since the vhs, I've only heard about this with regards to the Doors incedent (Jim was forbidden to sing "girl we couldn't get much higher", but may or may not have done so).
I concur, here's another funny story i remember from way back. http://www.varlinux.org/vl/html/modules/stories/ar ticle.php?storyid=296
gcc is the single most important piece of free software ever made and supporting it by using it provides enough benefits to outway the saving of a few bytes and clock cycles, imagined or real increases in popularity of apps thereof included.
Branden ROCKS!!!, Martin seems like a nice guy and all that, but not in the slightest does he rock. Have you ever seen a guy that rocks, get elected? /Debian, reading Habermas so you don't have to.
Well, they got that stuff at McDonalds so that makes more sence but this licence covers stuff they: A.don't make and B.don't distribute. I'm sorry but i still just can't see the reason.
This just boggles my mind. Is the licence thought to have a detering effect on trojanmakers becourse they might have to pay court/lawyers cost when recivers of your trojan sue not you, but sun? Why would you blame sun for a trojan you got from somone else, and even if you did, wouldn't the licence have to be intact when you get it, or you'd be back to square one where sun's license only covers suns work and not trojanmakers.
Normally it is trademark that puts the restrictions on names and logos, and that's all fine and well even by debian standards. What has happend is that they used their copyright to put further restrictions on names and logos(ie by the power of (C) you may not)you are for instance not allowed to refer to the name firefox without written consent for disccussions like these. This doesn't really matter in the us becourse 1. They probably wouldn't wouldn't sue 2. even if they did you'd claim fair use. problem is 1.fair use can only be used as defence once you're actually sued, 2.not everyone is in the us. 3. Having a bunch of users asking for permision to use the name firefox in slashdot comments is just plain stupid!(this might all seem a little harsh but in FLOSS communities users are depended upon as distributers and are thus subject to copyright)so what are you supposed to do, ignore it? Since they actually took the time to write it down you kind of get the creeping feeling that they really mean it, and _this_ is the annoying part. Debian could care less what the browser is called, they've offered to label it as an unoficial build, asked for another name to use, but this has been turned down and herein lies the problem.
Are you trying to be funny with that firefox sig.? lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-20 0402/msg01877.html
I'm not laughing.
Raise your voice on the appropriate debian mailing list or irc channel.(I however recommend finding some really, really good arguments first, you'll have to convince other people, trolling won't do neither will simple disagreement). But I'm quite sure you already knew that.
Try the new installer, and what do you mean no x, the installer (since woody atleast) runs tasksel just choose desktop or whatever it's called and there you go. (I remember my first install with the then unstable woody, trying to wrap my head around why it wanted to install a mail server, that was a problem).
Hurd=yes Stallman=no (I'm not the ac poster). Stallman removed a link to debian from somwhere on the fsf site sometime after the debcle where he endorsed that "free" distribution that turned out to include the nonfree nvidia drivers and him not beeing on speaking terms with branden becourse of the dfsg not agreeing with the freeness of gfdl.
If I hadn't squandered those modpoint (making sure i'll never get any other on this account:). I'd mod you up. (and grandparent wouldn't be a +4 informative).
Par archives is just a scam popularized by cluless usnet abusers. Think about it, if those files really could reconstruct a corrupt rar archive, why not post only the smaller par files (pigeon hole principle comp.compression faq)? What they do is just add redundansy. They contain the first and last parts of the rar archive, as those are the most likely to dissapear or not propagate. Get youself double copies and you'll be far better off, diffrent brands cd's/dvd's are easy, a backup hd is cheaper in the long run. (you could score a point by giving good reasons for the extra importance of first/last-part, but it's still just adding redundancy, and you can only get as much redundancy as you add or the technique would be better used as compression in the first place). Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but you're not the only one being tricked by those par files.
Actually it did work with kaffe when freenet was in debian.
Google is cheating too.
Cant find it on their downloadpage.
I don't think the 2.6 kernel (and i assume this is the default) supports kernel on floppies booting.
No, gnome was removed a long time ago. Except for kde there's fluxbox, icewm and xfce as far as i can see.
The spirit of St. Louis was designed by Donald Hall, and although heavily modified based on a conventional Ryan M-2.
There was a story a while back about a guy mounting two plates of alu to cool his hd that also did a great job silencing it, didn't seem that complicated.
The hardware compability lists are so outdated it's not even funny.If you're shopping for hardware don't look for compability first, it will make your head spinn. Decide what you'd like to have and then google (beware that very few hits can mean it's worked flawless. Kernel changelogs are always good, pay attention to who's kernel it is, it may not be mainline).