Are you attempting to be dense?
He clearly stated he wasn't arguing that anybody was wrong. Rather, he was providing information about how things happen in another area of the world (and he was absolutely clear about it). He never said "in Sweden it works this way, and so it is in the US".
I'd never heard of the term before, and found it an interesting idea to read about in addition to our views on land ownership and trespassing. In other words, some might take it as a valuable addition of information.
Amen to the physics comment. I've received an A in every math course I've taken at this school. I'm currently enrolled in differential equations and linear algebra and doing great. However, doing my modern physics homework, I just cringe at the difficulty of the mathematics. Don't get me started on the Schrodinger equation.
I think this is probably the most amusing explanation of Laplace transforms I've ever heard. Really, though, it's not that hard, was it? Every degree at my school requires differential equations, but you hear a LOT more complaining about infinite series in calc 2.
90% the speed of light should shorten the time needed (at least the time any passengers notice) less than the 4.3 years that light takes to reach the destination (from observations on Earth).
4.3 light-years is 4.065*10^16 meters (to 3 sigs). The gamma-v for 90% the speed of light is 2.294. Divide the former by the latter, and the length the passengers see themselves needing to travel is 1.772*10^16 meters. At.9c, this would take 2.083 years.
As we approach even closer to the speed of light, the time taken could become months, weeks, etc. (because gamma-v will approach infinity).
No, because of special relativity. While it would take you longer than 4.3 years to an observer on earth, from the frame of reference of the traveling ship, the distance can be covered substantially faster.
Default deny can work if done right. The big component is that you don't allow the users to allow anything. I've seen client-side firewalls in place that only allow access to 3 or 4 websites. Nothing else. And no changes allowed by the users. The problem with this is that the staff can't do anything by themselves, and depending on the environment, that may or may not be an issue. Reasonably, though, you can allow anything they need to do their job and then say no to everything else. No boxes for the to click yes to.
He said "those content providers will skip the fee" if you can put it on there. In other words, if it's easy as all hell for Joe Sixpack to install flash on his mobile phone, then there's no reason for Motorola to license that technology and provide it on their phones.
I don't really see this ever happening, but it's the sort of thing the EULA is trying to protect against. It's a pretty common thing (even if it's typically not this badly worded).
An expenditure could be time as well. The time expenditure for changing a bookmark is negligible, but it is at least somewhat substantial to install a different OS.
Judging from every map I've seen, though it is east of England, the majority of Belgium's landmass also falls south of the majority of England's. Perhaps it helps if you dig your head out of your ass and realize there might be two right answers.
And using a terrible disaster causing the death of 134K (CNN's current count) as an excuse to carry on about your gripes about Americans (whether warranted or not) makes you a much better person.
There was a second paragraph in the original post...
"Yesterday, I was contacted by the leader of the spinoff project who told me that he's quiet angry at us for doing that and that it's considered unethical and rude to copy code from the spinoff. As both projects are under the GPL, we have an opposing opinion on that matter and we've more than once invited him to copy code from our project. Nevertheless he's thinking about obfuscating his changelog and only open the source as packages when he's doing a release, which is, as he says, his right under the GPL."
So, yeah, I'd say there was a gripe.
I haven't seen one, but it would be a great thing to have one set up. Is there one in existance?
If there isn't, I'd like to see one form. Unfortunately, I really don't have the time to devote to something like that right now, but I'd be more than happy to accomodate the web-space required.
I'm missing what you are talking about here. I've never noticed a speed decrease. In fact, I just went through some testing by saving multiple pages to disk and loading them in (an already open) Firefox and IE window. I won't say either is faster, but I sure as hell can't tell any difference. IE seems to draw the page a little differently, but both seem to load in approximately the same amount of time.
To take things a little further, I found an HTML file weighing in at just a little under 3/4s of a meg. The file opens in Firefox in under a few seconds. IE took around ten on it's quickest run.
This is hardly perfect environments, but, as it's what I'm using "right now," I'd say that 1. it is somewhat valid, 2. I/have/ done the tests, and 3. this isn't just anti-MS FUD.
Admittedly, I do recall earlier versions of Mozilla/Firefox taking longer to render. When exactly did you do these tests?
I did a similar bit myself.
I was working on someone else's computer and trying to diagnose a whirring noise (I wasn't sure if it was a fan or the harddrive). It turns out that there was no fan (it was an older IBM, IIRC) on the PSU.
I found this out the stupid way when, without thinking about it for a second, I stuck a screwdrive in the back vent of the case.
*Pop* *Fizzle* *Smoke*
That I can understand. I really look forward to the point when the firefox folks feel they have a 1.0 worthy version.
OTOH, the fact that IE is up to 6.x or what-have-you doesn't make me much more confident in the software itself.
I'm unsure how the fact that IE has a version much larger than 1.0 makes it any less 'beta' than FireFox. While they don't flaunt the 'beta' title, it seems they are being somewhat misleading--examples like this show they have plenty to patch up still.
Personally, I don't like the whole 'beta' nomenclature. I'll decide when a piece of software is stable enough for me to use. Damned if I'll let version numbers taint my opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is better than Xbox 360 how ?
And he said it was better than Xbox 360 where ?
Are you attempting to be dense?
He clearly stated he wasn't arguing that anybody was wrong. Rather, he was providing information about how things happen in another area of the world (and he was absolutely clear about it). He never said "in Sweden it works this way, and so it is in the US".
I'd never heard of the term before, and found it an interesting idea to read about in addition to our views on land ownership and trespassing. In other words, some might take it as a valuable addition of information.
Um, the original GC was released in black in addition to purple. It's still not the best selection, but it came out with the two options.
Amen to the physics comment. I've received an A in every math course I've taken at this school. I'm currently enrolled in differential equations and linear algebra and doing great. However, doing my modern physics homework, I just cringe at the difficulty of the mathematics. Don't get me started on the Schrodinger equation.
I think this is probably the most amusing explanation of Laplace transforms I've ever heard. Really, though, it's not that hard, was it? Every degree at my school requires differential equations, but you hear a LOT more complaining about infinite series in calc 2.
90% the speed of light should shorten the time needed (at least the time any passengers notice) less than the 4.3 years that light takes to reach the destination (from observations on Earth).
.9c, this would take 2.083 years.
4.3 light-years is 4.065*10^16 meters (to 3 sigs). The gamma-v for 90% the speed of light is 2.294. Divide the former by the latter, and the length the passengers see themselves needing to travel is 1.772*10^16 meters. At
As we approach even closer to the speed of light, the time taken could become months, weeks, etc. (because gamma-v will approach infinity).
No, because of special relativity. While it would take you longer than 4.3 years to an observer on earth, from the frame of reference of the traveling ship, the distance can be covered substantially faster.
Default deny can work if done right. The big component is that you don't allow the users to allow anything. I've seen client-side firewalls in place that only allow access to 3 or 4 websites. Nothing else. And no changes allowed by the users. The problem with this is that the staff can't do anything by themselves, and depending on the environment, that may or may not be an issue. Reasonably, though, you can allow anything they need to do their job and then say no to everything else. No boxes for the to click yes to.
He said "those content providers will skip the fee" if you can put it on there. In other words, if it's easy as all hell for Joe Sixpack to install flash on his mobile phone, then there's no reason for Motorola to license that technology and provide it on their phones.
I don't really see this ever happening, but it's the sort of thing the EULA is trying to protect against. It's a pretty common thing (even if it's typically not this badly worded).
An expenditure could be time as well. The time expenditure for changing a bookmark is negligible, but it is at least somewhat substantial to install a different OS.
Judging from every map I've seen, though it is east of England, the majority of Belgium's landmass also falls south of the majority of England's. Perhaps it helps if you dig your head out of your ass and realize there might be two right answers.
You might reread your reference link.
The entry for Photoshop CS does, in fact, specifically reference 64-bit NX processors.
I thought the sarcasm was clear enough... Though I think he was going after "charge" rather than "charve".
I don't think that quite suffices to capture what he is getting at...
And using a terrible disaster causing the death of 134K (CNN's current count) as an excuse to carry on about your gripes about Americans (whether warranted or not) makes you a much better person.
Are you suggesting that Shigeru Miyamoto's work does not constitute good games?
There was a second paragraph in the original post... "Yesterday, I was contacted by the leader of the spinoff project who told me that he's quiet angry at us for doing that and that it's considered unethical and rude to copy code from the spinoff. As both projects are under the GPL, we have an opposing opinion on that matter and we've more than once invited him to copy code from our project. Nevertheless he's thinking about obfuscating his changelog and only open the source as packages when he's doing a release, which is, as he says, his right under the GPL." So, yeah, I'd say there was a gripe.
I haven't seen one, but it would be a great thing to have one set up. Is there one in existance? If there isn't, I'd like to see one form. Unfortunately, I really don't have the time to devote to something like that right now, but I'd be more than happy to accomodate the web-space required.
I'm missing what you are talking about here. I've never noticed a speed decrease. In fact, I just went through some testing by saving multiple pages to disk and loading them in (an already open) Firefox and IE window. I won't say either is faster, but I sure as hell can't tell any difference. IE seems to draw the page a little differently, but both seem to load in approximately the same amount of time. To take things a little further, I found an HTML file weighing in at just a little under 3/4s of a meg. The file opens in Firefox in under a few seconds. IE took around ten on it's quickest run. This is hardly perfect environments, but, as it's what I'm using "right now," I'd say that 1. it is somewhat valid, 2. I /have/ done the tests, and 3. this isn't just anti-MS FUD.
Admittedly, I do recall earlier versions of Mozilla/Firefox taking longer to render. When exactly did you do these tests?
I did a similar bit myself. I was working on someone else's computer and trying to diagnose a whirring noise (I wasn't sure if it was a fan or the harddrive). It turns out that there was no fan (it was an older IBM, IIRC) on the PSU. I found this out the stupid way when, without thinking about it for a second, I stuck a screwdrive in the back vent of the case. *Pop* *Fizzle* *Smoke*
That I can understand. I really look forward to the point when the firefox folks feel they have a 1.0 worthy version. OTOH, the fact that IE is up to 6.x or what-have-you doesn't make me much more confident in the software itself.
I'm unsure how the fact that IE has a version much larger than 1.0 makes it any less 'beta' than FireFox. While they don't flaunt the 'beta' title, it seems they are being somewhat misleading--examples like this show they have plenty to patch up still. Personally, I don't like the whole 'beta' nomenclature. I'll decide when a piece of software is stable enough for me to use. Damned if I'll let version numbers taint my opinions.