Actually, that was the version of BASIC that came with it. The Linux Kit came well after the console was released.
From the artical you just linked...
In Europe and Australia, the PlayStation 2 comes with a free Yabasic interpreter on the bundled demo disk. This allows simple programs to be created for the PlayStation 2 by the end-user. This was included in a failed attempt to circumvent a UK tax by defining the console as a "computer" if it contained certain software.
Wasn't a bad implementation either - though YABASIC is a bit bizarre as far as BASIC dialects go.
> At what point will technology become so cheap and simple to use, that it will make terrorism that much more effective and efficient.
About 40 years ago. Any terrorist that needs to wait for a big company to release sub $20 mobile phones before he can make a cheap remote detonator isn't trying. A 7 year old could make a cheap remote detonator from parts bought at Radio Shack with his or her pocket money.
you know, you're free to not buy the subscription, and to hire a developer to re-implement everything in it. I have a feeling I know which would be cheaper.
Re:Different technologies, different purpose
on
E-mail Is For Old People
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not approving of people displaying open animosity for someone they don't know because of nothing but their political beliefs is not the same as loving the target of the animosity.
Learn to be a little more tolerant, and people will like you better.
I'd recommend ezPublish too. The performance is not too bad at all (comparable with other non trivial database backed PHP applications), especially when you use a PHP accelerator - and the current version has a static export feature which will help a great deal.
I run it on a 2.4Ghz Celeron with 512Mb of memory, it manages 8 or 9 pages per second with a PHP accelerator, and I don't use static caching (yet). Obviously that's not gonna work for a high volume site, but as I said, it's consistent with the performance I get on pretty much everything else PHP based I've tried on that machine. In contrast Plone on that machine barely manages 1 page per second.
Some of the internals, particularly to do with the finer points of the template system are a bit obtuse, but they do have an excellent tutorial that gets you from install to a completely customized site in half an hour or so.
It's most serious attempt at an object oriented CMS for producing general purpose sites with any level of customization (from CSS tweaks to a complete redesign) that I've tried.
A lot of the other CMSs around are glorified blogging or forum systems, and the rest are glorified file managers.
The only trouble with that link is it only lists PHP/mysql CMSs.
http://www.cmsmatrix.org/ will show you the rest, including commercial ones if you're interested (and considering the price of commercial CMSs, you're probably not) And it lets you compare based on the features you require.
> Also, we sure didn't need a word to describe/. beyond tech news site or something to that effect for all these years, but if it were created by some self described "hipster" today it would be a "blog".
Actually, the first time I ever heard the term "web log" was describing slashdot (somewhere around 98 or 99), and slashdot fits the early definitions of blog far better than most "online diary with ocasional external links" sites that carry the blog label today.
No, the aforementioned grandparent chose a phrase that was confusing at best, and completely wrong at worst.
"defaulted to allowing" implies that the "allowing" was an optional setting that could be disabled. That's nonsensical unless you interpret the sentence as meaning "defaulted to using"
The correct wording would have been "Most Amigas allowed 4096 colors at a time out of a palette of 65536."
However according to this page there's no such 4096/65536 mode at all. So it's wrong no matter how you interpret it.
Well apparently you don't know anything about it either. If you do - then give us evidence by describing what is wrong with ctrl+c and ctrl+v
And I don't want to hear that it's not "intuitive". Intuitive only matter _once_, before I know how to do it. After I know how to do it, efficiency matters.
So tell us why ctrl+c and ctrl+v is inefficient, and tell us what would be better.
hmmm, actually I should probably modify my position a little there.
CC:PD has some value - like the CC licenses, it's boilerplate text that saves you having to write the statement yourself. In this case of course, it's not a license, it's a complete revocation of your rights. Whilst just writing "This is in the public domain" may well be enough, the CC:PD dedication clearly states to anyone who reads it not only that you are releasing the work into the public domain, but also describes exactly what that means.
Content marked with Creative Commons:Public Domain are not trying to put some artificial "Public Domain Like" license on their work - they're saying that they're releasing their work into the public domain, and the text of the CC:PD dedication is the wording they're using to do so.
The trouble is that a.) He doesn't understand that some people would like to give up some of their rights in a broad fashion, without having to give written permission on a case by case basis, and b.) He's using the CC:PD license as a reason why all the CC licenses are invalid and c.) He seems to be under the impression that you have to go _through_ the CC organisation to use a CC license - he doesn't seem to understand that the licenses are boilerplates that anyone can use if they feel that a particular license fits their needs.
I agree totally with his point on the CC:PD license - you don't need CC to put work in the public domain, you just need to say "This is in the public domain". So anyone using CC:PD either doesn't understand copyright or is posing. But it certainly doesn't follow that all CC licenses are invalid just because the CC:PD one is a waste of time.
> And even when it comes to programming, most of the decisions are made by a small group and the grunt work is carried out by the rest of the crew. Only if you work for a faceless mega corporation...
For the rest of us in medium sized organizations (1000 or so employees) - and particularly in the case of a non software company - there _is_ no rest of the crew. The few programming staff they have cover pretty much all the bases, and are therefore frequently responsible for all parts of the design and implementation.
I don't know if it scales up, but it sure as hell doesn't scale _down_ It's by far the slowest out of the box CMS I have ever played with. Also the split between Zope administration and Plone administration raises the learning curve quite a bit.
I really liked the design of Plone, but unfortunately the performance was so bad that it wasn't worth putting in the significan effort required to understand the system.
Something that comes close to Plone's design, but is much faster, well documented, and rather less complicated is ezPublish. I don't know how well it would handle 100,000 users though, as my CMS needs are for mostly public sites with a handful of editors as the only registered users.
if you read the article properly, you'd see that they actually _say_ it was scanned in.
This is a paper exhibit, which Frank Sorenson obtained from the court, scanned for us, and did the HTML. There are misspellings in the original. Thank you, Frank.
Slashdot Mirror
The Linux Kit came well after the console was released.
From the artical you just linked...
Wasn't a bad implementation either - though YABASIC is a bit bizarre as far as BASIC dialects go.
So it would only be newsworthy if everyone already knew about it?
If you're inserting "multi-media elements" you are doing more than just taking notes.
36000 houses? Do you live in poles over there?
why not?
It's English, we can split it if we want to.
> At what point will technology become so cheap and simple to use, that it will make terrorism that much more effective and efficient.
About 40 years ago.
Any terrorist that needs to wait for a big company to release sub $20 mobile phones before he can make a cheap remote detonator isn't trying.
A 7 year old could make a cheap remote detonator from parts bought at Radio Shack with his or her pocket money.
In the Win 3.1 days I used to use Powerpoint to create WMF files.
It worked surprisingly well.
you know, you're free to not buy the subscription, and to hire a developer to re-implement everything in it.
I have a feeling I know which would be cheaper.
Not approving of people displaying open animosity for someone they don't know because of nothing but their political beliefs is not the same as loving the target of the animosity.
Learn to be a little more tolerant, and people will like you better.
I'd recommend ezPublish too.
The performance is not too bad at all (comparable with other non trivial database backed PHP applications), especially when you use a PHP accelerator - and the current version has a static export feature which will help a great deal.
I run it on a 2.4Ghz Celeron with 512Mb of memory, it manages 8 or 9 pages per second with a PHP accelerator, and I don't use static caching (yet).
Obviously that's not gonna work for a high volume site, but as I said, it's consistent with the performance I get on pretty much everything else PHP based I've tried on that machine.
In contrast Plone on that machine barely manages 1 page per second.
Some of the internals, particularly to do with the finer points of the template system are a bit obtuse, but they do have an excellent tutorial that gets you from install to a completely customized site in half an hour or so.
It's most serious attempt at an object oriented CMS for producing general purpose sites with any level of customization (from CSS tweaks to a complete redesign) that I've tried.
A lot of the other CMSs around are glorified blogging or forum systems, and the rest are glorified file managers.
The only trouble with that link is it only lists PHP/mysql CMSs.
http://www.cmsmatrix.org/ will show you the rest, including commercial ones if you're interested (and considering the price of commercial CMSs, you're probably not) And it lets you compare based on the features you require.
> Also, we sure didn't need a word to describe /. beyond tech news site or something to that effect for all these years, but if it were created by some self described "hipster" today it would be a "blog".
Actually, the first time I ever heard the term "web log" was describing slashdot (somewhere around 98 or 99), and slashdot fits the early definitions of blog far better than most "online diary with ocasional external links" sites that carry the blog label today.
No, the aforementioned grandparent chose a phrase that was confusing at best, and completely wrong at worst.
"defaulted to allowing" implies that the "allowing" was an optional setting that could be disabled.
That's nonsensical unless you interpret the sentence as meaning "defaulted to using"
The correct wording would have been "Most Amigas allowed 4096 colors at a time out of a palette of 65536."
However according to this page there's no such 4096/65536 mode at all.
So it's wrong no matter how you interpret it.
Here's the press release from the awards themselves, since TFA is dead.
(PDF)
In Australia it's March 7, March 14, May 2, or October 3, depending on which state you're in.
It's flamebait because of the way he said it, not what he said.
It's possible to disagree with a point of view without being insulting.
Well at least they're not going on about gentoo anymore ;)
Well apparently you don't know anything about it either.
If you do - then give us evidence by describing what is wrong with ctrl+c and ctrl+v
And I don't want to hear that it's not "intuitive". Intuitive only matter _once_, before I know how to do it. After I know how to do it, efficiency matters.
So tell us why ctrl+c and ctrl+v is inefficient, and tell us what would be better.
hmmm, actually I should probably modify my position a little there.
CC:PD has some value - like the CC licenses, it's boilerplate text that saves you having to write the statement yourself. In this case of course, it's not a license, it's a complete revocation of your rights. Whilst just writing "This is in the public domain" may well be enough, the CC:PD dedication clearly states to anyone who reads it not only that you are releasing the work into the public domain, but also describes exactly what that means.
Content marked with Creative Commons:Public Domain are not trying to put some artificial "Public Domain Like" license on their work - they're saying that they're releasing their work into the public domain, and the text of the CC:PD dedication is the wording they're using to do so.
The trouble is that
a.) He doesn't understand that some people would like to give up some of their rights in a broad fashion, without having to give written permission on a case by case basis,
and b.) He's using the CC:PD license as a reason why all the CC licenses are invalid
and c.) He seems to be under the impression that you have to go _through_ the CC organisation to use a CC license - he doesn't seem to understand that the licenses are boilerplates that anyone can use if they feel that a particular license fits their needs.
I agree totally with his point on the CC:PD license - you don't need CC to put work in the public domain, you just need to say "This is in the public domain". So anyone using CC:PD either doesn't understand copyright or is posing. But it certainly doesn't follow that all CC licenses are invalid just because the CC:PD one is a waste of time.
> And even when it comes to programming, most of the decisions are made by a small group and the grunt work is carried out by the rest of the crew.
Only if you work for a faceless mega corporation...
For the rest of us in medium sized organizations (1000 or so employees) - and particularly in the case of a non software company - there _is_ no rest of the crew.
The few programming staff they have cover pretty much all the bases, and are therefore frequently responsible for all parts of the design and implementation.
A distribution license is something you have to agree to if you want to distribute it, not receive it.
make sure you test Plone's performance first.
I don't know if it scales up, but it sure as hell doesn't scale _down_
It's by far the slowest out of the box CMS I have ever played with.
Also the split between Zope administration and Plone administration raises the learning curve quite a bit.
I really liked the design of Plone, but unfortunately the performance was so bad that it wasn't worth putting in the significan effort required to understand the system.
Something that comes close to Plone's design, but is much faster, well documented, and rather less complicated is ezPublish.
I don't know how well it would handle 100,000 users though, as my CMS needs are for mostly public sites with a handful of editors as the only registered users.
Now you know why lawyers get paid a lot of money, and court cases are longer and more complicated than ticking boxes.