I just shut my monitor off and go to sleep usually. Sleep mode to me is just another worthless feature.
That method wastes a fair amount of power. I prefer the way I go now: I close the lid, the computer hibernates, on the morning, I open & press the power button, finds & plugs in the mouse and power, say good morning on so on... and then the laptop is good to go.
Also, stuffing the laptop in a bag without powerdown would make it rather hot?
I wish I could do this with my main computer, but alas, the one piece of proprietary software (nvidia's drivers) prevents this.
Re:Why are you even putting it in sleep mode
on
Vista an Uneasy Sleeper
·
· Score: 2, Informative
[...] but why in the wide wide world of sports are you putting it in sleepmode?
It might be the end of the day, time to go home, huggle the wife and get some sleep and stuff? Nice to have everything the way you when tomorrow morning.comes.
Or your server might need replacing the UPS. Hibernate is one easy way to get this done.
Just guessing, of course. I use hibernation every day with my Debian laptop.
-tons of windows-only custom apps they use (we had dozens of these), that could cost countless millions of $ to port (esentially rewrite from scratch) for another OS, or that would require everyone to use a terminal server - if they switched to linux at work, that's what everyone would be doing: using their workstation as a terminal server client and little more (almost everything we use is windows-only).
If you still have the source code, there is no need to rewrite from scratch. Porting is not *that* hard. The exception is the handful of languages which are windows-only (mostly VB).
Take a look at the article on nutrition (admittedly not my field of expertise, which would be a small area of algebra) which is clearly sporting some pro-vegetarian stance while praising the virtues of dieticians
Don't ask me why, but I actually skimmed the (quite long!) article about nutrition. I agree that the article could be tightened considerably. E.g, the
the whole "Nutrition and longevity" seems to be based on pure speculation. E.g, I remember a recent study that found no links between intake of antioxidants and cancer.
However, ignoring the perspective stuff, the article seems nice and is accurate to my best of my (layman's) knowledge. I really don't see what there is to bitch about there. Getting these long, rambling appendages to articles is a wikipedia problem, no doubt about that... but the article as a whole is fine in my (non-expert) opinion.
Also, the article contains several banners warning readings that the article may contain inaccuracies. So all in all, I think it is a pretty good example of a article, especially considering the relatively controversial contents.
On the other hand, as you will find out if you follow all those links in TFA+TFS, it appears *someone* at Ubuntu decided to ship binary drivers by default (!) in the next version of the OS. Now that is just wrong, for so many reasons. In any case, it doesn't show Ubuntu a pure-FOSS supporting distro. Some claim the decision was made with little or no community input.
Now, I am not a Ubuntu dev, so I may be wrong,but from my short research:
This change was discussed publicly (the opposite rumour stemmed from a opensuse dev as far as I can tell)
The change stems from the demand for AIGLX (if you assume that eye-candy is anything less than enormously important for many, many users, you are wrong.)
The drivers will be offered among other choices, and only recommend in the cases where there is no way to do AIGLX without these drivers.
I, for one, think they did the right thing. And the moment anyone produce a decent gfx card (say, can play A Tale in the desert and Savage 2), I will be moving to those gfx cards. Until then, I'm stuck with Nvidia or ATI.
So, let me get this straight. The openSUSE developers are smart enough to work on openSUSE, smart enough to be welcome to other distros, but too stupid to realize they can work on another distro if they want to?
The suse devs might not have realized that there was an upcoming event targeted at new developers to Ubuntu, though.
and you don't think that IBM and AMD could solve that in a *snap* with compilers they already own?
No idea about AMD, but having used an IBM c++ compiler... I'd think IBM could never write a halfway decent C++ compiler. In the 3? years I used their compiler, we found at least 3 separate critical bugs. One compiler not-quite-infinite-by-quite-close loop in the C preprocessing (come on, how hard can that be?), one crash during compilation and finally one where the compiler produced code that subtly corrupted the stack frame. Nice, eh? Of course, debugging a closed source compiler is close to impossible.
I, for one, would prefer something not tied up with Java (which is a subpar language in many ways) and especially with the Java Virtual Machine, which is worse.
The real advantage of webbased apps are that the providers have total control of the software. I'm not sure this is to the advantage of the users, but hey. If we want something like this, I'd suggest taking a look at SVG and work on a similar standard, meant for applications.
Actually, root can access a process memory through the/proc filesystem.Nothing is safe from root under Linux; that would be a silly protection anyway, as anyone could change the kernel to allow this in any case. (all right, it can be configured out of the kernel, but I havn't seen anyone actually do this yet. Might make sense for a hardened server.)
But yes, even a user can do this using a debugger like gdb.
In conclusion, you cannot really protect yourself against scripted clients; anything the client can do, a script can do.
It doesn't work on Linux as of this spring... but I must admit I didn't check recently. (Checking). Oh my, it made it in july this year. Congratulations:o)
I welcome high prices on w32. There are alternatives, said manufactures could just install one of those.
Now, if the prices dependent on not selling anything by w32, I can see the point, and that should be fined so heavily that they never, ever dream of doing it again.
SWT is a pain to use, and doesn't support printing on any relevant platform. Swing is just ugly, slow and a pain to use, I'd recommend it over SWT any day.
QT release a Java interface not so long ago. So maybe there is hope that Java will finally get a decent toolkit.
I develop on Windows at work (XP Pro), and my system has an uptime into multiple months. So long as you arent a bigotted asshole, its not hard to accomplish.
Such nice language you have. Oh well. I have often met people who claim fantastical uptimes for their window boxes, but on inspection it is usually <1 week. Of course, you might be the exception, but then I did list a few more point for the grandparent to do to back up his claim on windows being more usable.
Have fun! Tomorrow I will (again) be working on a fully OS platform, and the only downside is the bits done in Java:)
Nice try:) Let me see you run a windows machine for developing for a month, no crashes, no reboots. Repeat this for month after month. Then let me see you install a windows machine through booting a CD (or DVD if you prefer), seeing everything works as expected, and then initiate the install. The install will automatically accomodate the existing OSs on the computer, and making dual booting between any number of OSs possible. After the install, let me then see you find and install a secure browser, 2 different spreadsheets, a 3D object editor and maybe 30 small games for those 10 minutes with nothing to do. Then let me see you get an overview over all the applications installed, and press a button to upgrade all those to their newest version. Your budget is.... let's be generous and say 30 Euro.
Windows is good for exactly one thing... playing certain games. And it's getting worse all the time (not due to linux, but due to the PSn or whatever those playing boxes are called).As I have lost much of my interest in playing that sort of games, I have never been happier with Linux, which is so much better for what I do... developing software.
Lifetime or X years, whichever is longer, strikes me as a reasonable copyright term length
Good idea! Then, if someone made something we really want, we could always kill the creator and *bang*! public domain;)
Personally, I feel 30 years is plenty long. Most don't earn any significant amounts by copyrights after the first 30 years. Nice and easy to administer, too, unlike lifelengths, especially when the copyrights are divided between a lot of individuals.
I can only speak for (mathematic) set theory and general topology... since those are the only fields where I will consider myself anywhere near being an expert (If you care to, my master is findable under google.) Anyway, the articles I have studied in those fields were quite good; certainly better than the one paragraph such subjects would get in an mathematical oriented encycleopedia, not to mention the 0-1 lines in an traditional dead tree encycleopedia. I admit I tend to judge Wikipedia from the articles where I can judge, and from the few my wife has commented on (in the Bovine Spongiform EnsomethingIcan'tspell area). So take that with as much salt as you feel like.
As I recall, the study concluded that Wikipedia had the same number of errors, and about 1/3 more imprecisions (or imprecise statements in case that word doesn't scan). Which, considering how much more ground wikipedia covers is stunningly impressive. The thing to bear in mind is that this was hard science articles... not articles about a current American president or something volatile like that.
I'm not sure how that addresses the main problem GP points to: "The problem (AFAIK) with OO.o is that they have a huge code base that nobody understands"
I didn't address it since it is obviously nonsense (if noone could understand it, noone could maintain it. If someone can learn it, then someone could fork it.) If you want to work on a nicely coded office suite, take a look at KOffice. Or maybe Abiword, I don't know that one.
The problem (AFAIK) with OO.o is that they have a huge code base that nobody understands, and that it's hard to actually get them to accept changes from outside their special little group of programmers.
If it is opensource, and someone is really stiffling the progress.... it can be forked. gcc and XFree are 2 examples of how to do this.
But really, Java has so many flaws, it is only useful for backward compability, unless someone is willing to fix some of the more fundamental flaws. Like getting rid of primitive types, stop throwing the type information away for templated, sorry, generic types, getting support for resource management (where resource != memory). I could go on, but I won't, since it is friday and I am a happy person:)
For the record, I was also quite underwhelmed by XFS. The Gentoo people, I think, wrote that XFS is primarily to large files and *only* if you have an UPS (and proper shutdown control). The problem is that it (quite aggressively) cache write-data; I have seen data disappear which was written nearly 2 hours before.
I am quite happy with ext3. Reiserfs had a nasty tendency to slowly deteriorate over time, becoming slower and slower.
Is there anything natural about infix notation, other than we learned it doing math growing up?
Yes, there are several natural aspects of infix, though you'll see lots of misuse of infix too. For one thing, infix screams "commutative".. which is why 5+3 makes so much more sense than +(5,3) or even worse 5.+(3). On the other hand 5**3, 5/3 and such constructs are truly unnatural approximation to their natural notations, which I will not attempt in slashdot HTML. Another aspect is operator precendence, which eliminates many parenthesis, which is always a worthwhile goal in and of itself, shortening the expression and distilling the meaning. This, 3+5*3+4 is much better than 3+((5*3)+4) or worse, +(3,+(*(5,3),4). I won't even try to write it up memberfunction style.
This is not really a detraction from LISP as such. LISP can be fairly trivially cleaned up to remove most of the useless parenthesis, and introduction of a few extra parenthesis further helps. The creators of LISP did the (somewhat classic) mistake of easing the computer's load by offloading to the human, which is a truly silly. There is no excuse for the function declaration syntax though. That is just needlessly similar to function calling, without being so. At least, that's how I view it:)
Slashdot Mirror
Usually, I direct the pleasentries at my colleagues, but I'm sure the laptop appreciates it as well ;)
That method wastes a fair amount of power. I prefer the way I go now: I close the lid, the computer hibernates, on the morning, I open & press the power button, finds & plugs in the mouse and power, say good morning on so on... and then the laptop is good to go.
Also, stuffing the laptop in a bag without powerdown would make it rather hot?
I wish I could do this with my main computer, but alas, the one piece of proprietary software (nvidia's drivers) prevents this.
It might be the end of the day, time to go home, huggle the wife and get some sleep and stuff? Nice to have everything the way you when tomorrow morning.comes. Or your server might need replacing the UPS. Hibernate is one easy way to get this done.
Just guessing, of course. I use hibernation every day with my Debian laptop.
If you follow point 5, not following point 3 is rather harmless... few viruses run via Wine. ;)
For linux I would instead of point 3 do "Use your package manager to install software
If you still have the source code, there is no need to rewrite from scratch. Porting is not *that* hard. The exception is the handful of languages which are windows-only (mostly VB).
Trust me on this... Sametime sucks horribly in all it's incarnations. Do yourself a favour, use Jabber.
Don't ask me why, but I actually skimmed the (quite long!) article about nutrition. I agree that the article could be tightened considerably. E.g, the the whole "Nutrition and longevity" seems to be based on pure speculation. E.g, I remember a recent study that found no links between intake of antioxidants and cancer.
However, ignoring the perspective stuff, the article seems nice and is accurate to my best of my (layman's) knowledge. I really don't see what there is to bitch about there. Getting these long, rambling appendages to articles is a wikipedia problem, no doubt about that... but the article as a whole is fine in my (non-expert) opinion.
Also, the article contains several banners warning readings that the article may contain inaccuracies. So all in all, I think it is a pretty good example of a article, especially considering the relatively controversial contents.
Now, I am not a Ubuntu dev, so I may be wrong ,but from my short research:
I, for one, think they did the right thing. And the moment anyone produce a decent gfx card (say, can play A Tale in the desert and Savage 2), I will be moving to those gfx cards. Until then, I'm stuck with Nvidia or ATI.
The suse devs might not have realized that there was an upcoming event targeted at new developers to Ubuntu, though.
No idea about AMD, but having used an IBM c++ compiler... I'd think IBM could never write a halfway decent C++ compiler. In the 3? years I used their compiler, we found at least 3 separate critical bugs. One compiler not-quite-infinite-by-quite-close loop in the C preprocessing (come on, how hard can that be?), one crash during compilation and finally one where the compiler produced code that subtly corrupted the stack frame. Nice, eh? Of course, debugging a closed source compiler is close to impossible.
With that tagline, I'll forgive you anything :)
I, for one, would prefer something not tied up with Java (which is a subpar language in many ways) and especially with the Java Virtual Machine, which is worse.
The real advantage of webbased apps are that the providers have total control of the software. I'm not sure this is to the advantage of the users, but hey. If we want something like this, I'd suggest taking a look at SVG and work on a similar standard, meant for applications.
Actually, root can access a process memory through the /proc filesystem.Nothing is safe from root under Linux; that would be a silly protection anyway, as anyone could change the kernel to allow this in any case. (all right, it can be configured out of the kernel, but I havn't seen anyone actually do this yet. Might make sense for a hardened server.)
But yes, even a user can do this using a debugger like gdb.
In conclusion, you cannot really protect yourself against scripted clients; anything the client can do, a script can do.
It doesn't work on Linux as of this spring... but I must admit I didn't check recently. (Checking). Oh my, it made it in july this year. Congratulations :o)
I welcome high prices on w32. There are alternatives, said manufactures could just install one of those.
Now, if the prices dependent on not selling anything by w32, I can see the point, and that should be fined so heavily that they never, ever dream of doing it again.
SWT is a pain to use, and doesn't support printing on any relevant platform. Swing is just ugly, slow and a pain to use, I'd recommend it over SWT any day.
QT release a Java interface not so long ago. So maybe there is hope that Java will finally get a decent toolkit.
Such nice language you have. Oh well. I have often met people who claim fantastical uptimes for their window boxes, but on inspection it is usually <1 week. Of course, you might be the exception, but then I did list a few more point for the grandparent to do to back up his claim on windows being more usable.
Have fun! Tomorrow I will (again) be working on a fully OS platform, and the only downside is the bits done in Java :)
Nice try :) Let me see you run a windows machine for developing for a month, no crashes, no reboots. Repeat this for month after month. Then let me see you install a windows machine through booting a CD (or DVD if you prefer), seeing everything works as expected, and then initiate the install. The install will automatically accomodate the existing OSs on the computer, and making dual booting between any number of OSs possible. After the install, let me then see you find and install a secure browser, 2 different spreadsheets, a 3D object editor and maybe 30 small games for those 10 minutes with nothing to do. Then let me see you get an overview over all the applications installed, and press a button to upgrade all those to their newest version. Your budget is.... let's be generous and say 30 Euro.
Windows is good for exactly one thing... playing certain games. And it's getting worse all the time (not due to linux, but due to the PSn or whatever those playing boxes are called).As I have lost much of my interest in playing that sort of games, I have never been happier with Linux, which is so much better for what I do... developing software.
Good idea! Then, if someone made something we really want, we could always kill the creator and *bang*! public domain ;)
Personally, I feel 30 years is plenty long. Most don't earn any significant amounts by copyrights after the first 30 years. Nice and easy to administer, too, unlike lifelengths, especially when the copyrights are divided between a lot of individuals.
I can only speak for (mathematic) set theory and general topology... since those are the only fields where I will consider myself anywhere near being an expert (If you care to, my master is findable under google.) Anyway, the articles I have studied in those fields were quite good; certainly better than the one paragraph such subjects would get in an mathematical oriented encycleopedia, not to mention the 0-1 lines in an traditional dead tree encycleopedia. I admit I tend to judge Wikipedia from the articles where I can judge, and from the few my wife has commented on (in the Bovine Spongiform EnsomethingIcan'tspell area). So take that with as much salt as you feel like.
As I recall, the study concluded that Wikipedia had the same number of errors, and about 1/3 more imprecisions (or imprecise statements in case that word doesn't scan). Which, considering how much more ground wikipedia covers is stunningly impressive. The thing to bear in mind is that this was hard science articles... not articles about a current American president or something volatile like that.
If it is opensource, and someone is really stiffling the progress.... it can be forked. gcc and XFree are 2 examples of how to do this.
But really, Java has so many flaws, it is only useful for backward compability, unless someone is willing to fix some of the more fundamental flaws. Like getting rid of primitive types, stop throwing the type information away for templated, sorry, generic types, getting support for resource management (where resource != memory). I could go on, but I won't, since it is friday and I am a happy person :)
For the record, I was also quite underwhelmed by XFS. The Gentoo people, I think, wrote that XFS is primarily to large files and *only* if you have an UPS (and proper shutdown control). The problem is that it (quite aggressively) cache write-data; I have seen data disappear which was written nearly 2 hours before. I am quite happy with ext3. Reiserfs had a nasty tendency to slowly deteriorate over time, becoming slower and slower.
Yes, there are several natural aspects of infix, though you'll see lots of misuse of infix too. For one thing, infix screams "commutative".. which is why 5+3 makes so much more sense than +(5,3) or even worse 5.+(3). On the other hand 5**3, 5/3 and such constructs are truly unnatural approximation to their natural notations, which I will not attempt in slashdot HTML. Another aspect is operator precendence, which eliminates many parenthesis, which is always a worthwhile goal in and of itself, shortening the expression and distilling the meaning. This, 3+5*3+4 is much better than 3+((5*3)+4) or worse, +(3,+(*(5,3),4). I won't even try to write it up memberfunction style.
This is not really a detraction from LISP as such. LISP can be fairly trivially cleaned up to remove most of the useless parenthesis, and introduction of a few extra parenthesis further helps. The creators of LISP did the (somewhat classic) mistake of easing the computer's load by offloading to the human, which is a truly silly. There is no excuse for the function declaration syntax though. That is just needlessly similar to function calling, without being so. At least, that's how I view it :)