Dynamic partitioning is great. Lets say you want to try out a new os version. Install it under another partition and test as much as you want -- without ever shutting off the other os.
You can also use this system anytime you'd dual boot. Just cut one partition down to 1/10 of a proc and increase the allocation for the other one. When you're done playing your game or using some obscure app, just reverse the values and go back to using your main system. You never have to shut it down again.
Want to try a new mailserver config w/out taking your live system offline? Don't have a spare box? Use logical partitioning.
Do you need to test a multi-machine app? Don't feel like buying more hardware yet? Guess what technology solves that problem...
I can't do this under the terms of the GPL, even though I am not 'copying' the original product. You make an interesting point, but you may be wrong. this is from the GPL:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
It looks like TrollTech may have a problem. Then again, if you don't respect the GPL, why do you want to rip off the work of people who decided to use it? Write your own damn library if you don't like their terms.
I don't think that as a user I can write a product that isn't GPL that links against a GPL library, even if I don't distribute that library.
You are mistaken. From the Gnu's mouth:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
Read it here Look at the second paragraph under section 0.
Otherwise QT would be screwed! As long as you don't modify and distribute QT or distribute a program that links against it, you are free to do whatever you want with it. If I want to write some software that uses QT and never share it with anyone outside of my organization, I can do that. Heck I can modify QT to my heart's content as long as I don't distribute it outside of my organization.
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
The GPL is not an EULA. It's a copyright license. The GPL does not govern how the end user uses a product. It only controls redistribution via copying.
The parent to your comment was talking about the fact that much of the "old UNIX" codebase is already covered by the BSD license if it's not in the Public Domain. There's not much left of the old UNIX that's still covered by a proprietary license.
Halo PC is not the way people were meant to play Halo. It was released 3 years later with neglible changes. It was born on the console, and thats where the gameplay really belongs.
Halo was just the next version of Marathon, a long cherished Mac only game. Eventually a Windows 95 port was made, but it started as a Mac only game. Halo was announced for the Mac long before the X-Box. Microsoft boughtBungie to make it an X-Box game and intentionally delayed the release of the computer versions even though they were started first.
Your prices are way too high. nic < $10 (it's not onboard?) Floppy <$5 (what for anyway?) CD-RW <$30 (It'll read DVD's too) Case <$20 (includes 300W Power supply)
Those prices are to the public, btw. I bet you can get a system built for <$100 if you shop at wholesalers. Since you will be reselling these, you don't pay sales tax and may get a larger discount. Given a large enough order you can get an even larger discount.
It has to do with Safari's limit on the number of simultaneous connections. If you open three tabs, but one of them is media-heavy and on a slow server, then the max number of connections will be used by that one tab and the browser won't be able to load anything. If you kill that tab, everything works again.
You can test this out by finding a mildly slashdotted server with lots of small images in their ui. The response time will be very high as will the number of requests. Now if you try to load anything else, the new page has to wait for one of the slow connections to finish (or fail) before it can start loading the new page.
I feel sick saying it, but I may have to vote for him. I just wish someone else had actually seriously campaigned for president. I've just got to keep pushing for IRV or one of it's better alternatives.
The problem with this whole post is this: Just because I disagree with Bush out of doesn't mean that I like the Democrats. I dislike both parties. They're both up to their ears in risky foreign policy that earns us the hate of the rest of the world. How many dictators (including Saddam) have the Democrats and Republicans installed over the years? Remind me why they supported (or orchestrated) the destruction of several democratic governments in the Americas alone?
But Green Party presidential candidate has definitely cast his mind about nuclear energy and genetic engineering.
But that's my point. In an organization that believes in grassroots democracy, the candidates match the membership's philosophy. I've spoken with David Cobb several times and I'm certain that he could be convinced to support any safe sustainable technology. His stance on those issues is based on the fact that no such technology (with attendant policies) currently exists.
If safe, well thought-out methods of using the technologies you mention are really available, then once you convince the membership, the candidates will follow. Note that there would have to be really convincing arguments as to safety and sustainability. It's not enough to predict that waste disposal solutions, etc will be invented later.
The Greens are big on examining the whole picture, so before you try to push fission, read up on the findings of the Tooth Fairy project. Many of these so-called "clean" technologies actually cause lots of problems in practice.
Just remember that the Greens are guided by their ten key values. They will adopt policies that fit those values, but they aren't set in their ways. They are very open minded and are willing to listen to anyone.
The anti GMO issue is actually backed by good science. Genetic engineering is good science, but it plays almost no part in the debate beyond the creation of the organisms.
A good scientist looks at the whole picture. What happens when the new stronger, better (as far as we know) corn drives the other varieties of corn into extinction*? Now imagine that a new parasite targets that one breed of corn? Monsanto, etc. are the ones practicing bad science. They are creating potential disasters without considering the possible consequences.
The Greens are simply against blindly charging ahead into the field. The problem is with the companies that use the products of that science for their own ends. The "Frankenfood" thing is an attention getter. It gets people to discuss GMOs when they normally wouldn't. It worked, didn't it?
*If you say that this can't happen, consider RoundUp resistant corn in a place that has been bombarded with RoundUp. What's the only species left after the purge?
It's fine to oppose nuclear energy or genetic engineering as an informed choice, but he should be prepared to change his mind when presented with rational evidence. I would love to have this guy as a senator to throw a wrench into Bush'es oil drilling plans, for example. But a president must be able to make a decision against his own beliefs if that's the right thing to do.
The Greens are good at that. They actually believe in democracy. Contact your nearest county Green Party and ask to make a presentation to them logically arguing that one of their stances is incorrect or not in-line with their stated values. They will listen respectfully and may even change their minds.
Heck, just show up to the national convention and watch normal people debate real issues in deciding the platform. The decisions aren't made by some hierarchical committee, their made using the consensus process.
The Green Party is a lot less dogmatic than the Democrats and Republicans.
It's not about telling you what car you can drive. It's about telling you what you aren't allowed to dump into the air that I breathe.
If I happen to like driving a vehicle that strips paint off of the walls of nearby buildings, is that ok? Can they sue me for property damage? Can I sue you for medical bills if you drive a vehicle that produces way too much CO? (That said, I don't think anyone wants to get rid of your Z)
Fuck that shit. I'm goddamned tired of having all these fuckers tell me I should run for something or devote my life to fixing everything I think is wrong.
If I think a stop sign should be at my intersection, I'm supposed to go to a bunch of goddamned city council meetings and argue like hell for it. -- Bullshit -- the cops should know it's needed.
If I don't like rivers being polluted, I'm supposed to quit my day job, let my house and family go to hell while I embark on a campaign to get it to happen. -- More bullshit -- the bastards in office should do the goddamned job they were elected to do and swore an oath of office to do.
Fuck you sons of bitches whose only mealy-mouthed answer is "If you want it done, give up all else to get it done. And do that for every wrong on earth."
This is a Democracy. It requires a minimum level of participation. If you want your views represented, you have to make sure that your representatives are aware of your views. If that's too hard for you, consider living under a dictatorship or a monarchy so that you won't have to worry about being able to effect change.
If Corporate America didn't have to pay any income taxes, or the expense of "complience officers", government relations, et al, they should be able to offer many more benefits.
But would they? What incentive would they have? Competition won't do it because workers can't just choose to move their family across the country to compete for jobs at one of the few companies that offer decent benefits.
Think of it as price fixing -- all the corporations in your scenario could simply agree not to offer benefits or good pay. Therefore workers wouldn't be able to "vote with their feet" and work somewhere that treats them decently.
Corporations have a single motive: profit. If providing those benefits isn't going to increase profit, then they won't do it.
What ever happened to the vision behind Progressive Networks? Have the people at Real forgotten why their format was created in the first place? Does Real still have a social conscience or did they shed that with the name change?
I will continue to bitch and not vote until we ditch the two party system or I die
Then vote for a third party candidate! If you just fail to vote, nobody in power cares. If you vote for a third party candidate, then at least you show up as yet another person who doesn't like the two-party system. People who don't vote get lumped together as lazy and irresponsible whether they do it from sloth or in protest against the system. BTW: if you register with a third party affiliation, the folks in power notice that too.
People who are eligible to vote but don't and still have the gall to complain make me sick.
I'd like to see mandatory voting with a "none of the above" option and a 50% +1 majority to win with runoffs as needed.
Why waste the space? Write a bogus FTP (or HTTP) server that returns lists of nonexistent files. Have requests for those files result in lots of random junk being sent. To conserve your bandwidth, don't send any random junk but do list large file sizes.
Slashdot Mirror
Dynamic partitioning is great. Lets say you want to try out a new os version. Install it under another partition and test as much as you want -- without ever shutting off the other os.
...
You can also use this system anytime you'd dual boot. Just cut one partition down to 1/10 of a proc and increase the allocation for the other one. When you're done playing your game or using some obscure app, just reverse the values and go back to using your main system. You never have to shut it down again.
Want to try a new mailserver config w/out taking your live system offline? Don't have a spare box? Use logical partitioning.
Do you need to test a multi-machine app? Don't feel like buying more hardware yet? Guess what technology solves that problem
Oops. I grabbed text from the wrong tab. That's part of the LGPL. Sorry.
You make an interesting point, but you may be wrong. this is from the GPL:
It looks like TrollTech may have a problem. Then again, if you don't respect the GPL, why do you want to rip off the work of people who decided to use it? Write your own damn library if you don't like their terms.
You are mistaken. From the Gnu's mouth:
Read it here Look at the second paragraph under section 0.
Otherwise QT would be screwed!
As long as you don't modify and distribute QT or distribute a program that links against it, you are free to do whatever you want with it. If I want to write some software that uses QT and never share it with anyone outside of my organization, I can do that. Heck I can modify QT to my heart's content as long as I don't distribute it outside of my organization.
Fron the FAQ:
The GPL is not an EULA. It's a copyright license. The GPL does not govern how the end user uses a product. It only controls redistribution via copying.
Why would anyone develop for Symbian based phones when they can leverage their Win32/.NET knowledge on a Microsoft platform?
Because they have enough Win32/.NET knowledge to know better than to develop for a Microsoft platform?
Do I win a prize?
The parent to your comment was talking about the fact that much of the "old UNIX" codebase is already covered by the BSD license if it's not in the Public Domain. There's not much left of the old UNIX that's still covered by a proprietary license.
Halo PC is not the way people were meant to play Halo. It was released 3 years later with neglible changes. It was born on the console, and thats where the gameplay really belongs.
Halo was just the next version of Marathon, a long cherished Mac only game. Eventually a Windows 95 port was made, but it started as a Mac only game. Halo was announced for the Mac long before the X-Box. Microsoft bought Bungie to make it an X-Box game and intentionally delayed the release of the computer versions even though they were started first.
Your prices are way too high.
nic < $10 (it's not onboard?)
Floppy <$5 (what for anyway?)
CD-RW <$30 (It'll read DVD's too)
Case <$20 (includes 300W Power supply)
Those prices are to the public, btw. I bet you can get a system built for <$100 if you shop at wholesalers. Since you will be reselling these, you don't pay sales tax and may get a larger discount. Given a large enough order you can get an even larger discount.
It has to do with Safari's limit on the number of simultaneous connections. If you open three tabs, but one of them is media-heavy and on a slow server, then the max number of connections will be used by that one tab and the browser won't be able to load anything. If you kill that tab, everything works again.
You can test this out by finding a mildly slashdotted server with lots of small images in their ui. The response time will be very high as will the number of requests. Now if you try to load anything else, the new page has to wait for one of the slow connections to finish (or fail) before it can start loading the new page.
the president, for one, shouldn't be participating in an activity that misleads the American People.
Do remember hearing something about "proof" and "weapons of mass destruction" ????
Here's one person's take on why this is a time to vote for the lesser of two evils:
johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com I haven't read the site, but the URL says it all.
I feel sick saying it, but I may have to vote for him. I just wish someone else had actually seriously campaigned for president. I've just got to keep pushing for IRV or one of it's better alternatives.
The problem with this whole post is this: Just because I disagree with Bush out of doesn't mean that I like the Democrats. I dislike both parties. They're both up to their ears in risky foreign policy that earns us the hate of the rest of the world. How many dictators (including Saddam) have the Democrats and Republicans installed over the years? Remind me why they supported (or orchestrated) the destruction of several democratic governments in the Americas alone?
It's time to get rid of both of our main parties.
But Green Party presidential candidate has definitely cast his mind about nuclear energy and genetic engineering.
But that's my point. In an organization that believes in grassroots democracy, the candidates match the membership's philosophy. I've spoken with David Cobb several times and I'm certain that he could be convinced to support any safe sustainable technology. His stance on those issues is based on the fact that no such technology (with attendant policies) currently exists.
If safe, well thought-out methods of using the technologies you mention are really available, then once you convince the membership, the candidates will follow. Note that there would have to be really convincing arguments as to safety and sustainability. It's not enough to predict that waste disposal solutions, etc will be invented later.
The Greens are big on examining the whole picture, so before you try to push fission, read up on the findings of the Tooth Fairy project. Many of these so-called "clean" technologies actually cause lots of problems in practice.
Just remember that the Greens are guided by their ten key values. They will adopt policies that fit those values, but they aren't set in their ways. They are very open minded and are willing to listen to anyone.
The anti GMO issue is actually backed by good science. Genetic engineering is good science, but it plays almost no part in the debate beyond the creation of the organisms.
A good scientist looks at the whole picture. What happens when the new stronger, better (as far as we know) corn drives the other varieties of corn into extinction*? Now imagine that a new parasite targets that one breed of corn? Monsanto, etc. are the ones practicing bad science. They are creating potential disasters without considering the possible consequences.
The Greens are simply against blindly charging ahead into the field. The problem is with the companies that use the products of that science for their own ends. The "Frankenfood" thing is an attention getter. It gets people to discuss GMOs when they normally wouldn't. It worked, didn't it?
*If you say that this can't happen, consider RoundUp resistant corn in a place that has been bombarded with RoundUp. What's the only species left after the purge?
It's fine to oppose nuclear energy or genetic engineering as an informed choice, but he should be prepared to change his mind when presented with rational evidence. I would love to have this guy as a senator to throw a wrench into Bush'es oil drilling plans, for example. But a president must be able to make a decision against his own beliefs if that's the right thing to do.
The Greens are good at that. They actually believe in democracy. Contact your nearest county Green Party and ask to make a presentation to them logically arguing that one of their stances is incorrect or not in-line with their stated values. They will listen respectfully and may even change their minds.
Heck, just show up to the national convention and watch normal people debate real issues in deciding the platform. The decisions aren't made by some hierarchical committee, their made using the consensus process.
The Green Party is a lot less dogmatic than the Democrats and Republicans.
It's not about telling you what car you can drive. It's about telling you what you aren't allowed to dump into the air that I breathe.
If I happen to like driving a vehicle that strips paint off of the walls of nearby buildings, is that ok? Can they sue me for property damage? Can I sue you for medical bills if you drive a vehicle that produces way too much CO? (That said, I don't think anyone wants to get rid of your Z)
This is a Democracy. It requires a minimum level of participation. If you want your views represented, you have to make sure that your representatives are aware of your views. If that's too hard for you, consider living under a dictatorship or a monarchy so that you won't have to worry about being able to effect change.
he only alternative party that ever made a REAL go for it was Ross Perot
The Republicans were a third party. Look where they are now. Oh, and Ross Perot isn't a party, he was a candidate.
If Corporate America didn't have to pay any income taxes, or the expense of "complience officers", government relations, et al, they should be able to offer many more benefits.
But would they? What incentive would they have? Competition won't do it because workers can't just choose to move their family across the country to compete for jobs at one of the few companies that offer decent benefits.
Think of it as price fixing -- all the corporations in your scenario could simply agree not to offer benefits or good pay. Therefore workers wouldn't be able to "vote with their feet" and work somewhere that treats them decently.
Corporations have a single motive: profit. If providing those benefits isn't going to increase profit, then they won't do it.
That's how I read it. If we can harness this force we could soon create StarTrek's food replicators.
What ever happened to the vision behind Progressive Networks? Have the people at Real forgotten why their format was created in the first place? Does Real still have a social conscience or did they shed that with the name change?
I will continue to bitch and not vote until we ditch the two party system or I die
Then vote for a third party candidate! If you just fail to vote, nobody in power cares. If you vote for a third party candidate, then at least you show up as yet another person who doesn't like the two-party system. People who don't vote get lumped together as lazy and irresponsible whether they do it from sloth or in protest against the system. BTW: if you register with a third party affiliation, the folks in power notice that too.
People who are eligible to vote but don't and still have the gall to complain make me sick.
I'd like to see mandatory voting with a "none of the above" option and a 50% +1 majority to win with runoffs as needed.
It's a calendar application. That doesn't yet integrate with FireFox or Thunderbird. It's also at version 0.2, not 2.0.
Isn't the text at the top of this page supposed to be a summary?
Why waste the space? Write a bogus FTP (or HTTP) server that returns lists of nonexistent files. Have requests for those files result in lots of random junk being sent. To conserve your bandwidth, don't send any random junk but do list large file sizes.