Filtering can only go so far. I have extensive filtering in place (pushing things I know I won't read directly to the trash), yet, if I were to actually give attention to each and every mail, I'd do nothing else during the day.
My solution - so far - has been to filter according to sender and subject, and just purge the majority of mailboxes unseen every evening. Then I clear out everything older than a week from the trash. Yes, I'll miss some email that would have been important (for some time, my sister couldn't reach me when she changed mailaddress and I kept deleting her mails without seeing them).
Of course, this is not a tenable solution; I'll miss something of real importance sooner or later, and the fecal matter will hit the air propulsion device. Until then - or until I find a better way - I'll just continue happily deleting...
No, it's a GPRS network - 2.5G, it's been called. No Swedish carriers have started yet (they'll probably start offering service in the metropolitan areas early next year).
I never used gmc (or mc, for that matter), I've only tried Nautilus to see how it works, and the same goes for every other filemanager I've tried under Linux. In Linux, I prefer using shellcommands rather that dragn'drop. It's not becuse Linux filemanagers are bad - they aren't.
The weird thing is that under Win or NT, I have little problems with using their filemanager, and under MacOS, I'd feel lost without having directory windows everywhere. When I tried a program that gave me the same interface on Linux, I lost all patience within five minutes.
I think it's something about how you think about your system. I see Linux differently than I see MacOS (or Windows...), so my preferred work habits are different too. I saw the same thing happen with a friend who's a long time Mac developer when he started using Linux. After a while, he went more and more to using a shell instead of a filemanager (though he still mixes those uses after almost a year).
Well, negligable is a point of view, of course... It all depends on what kind of accuracy you want to have; in some applications very small errors will multiply a lot, making even a miniscule error important.
When building large stuff (the Öresund bridge, long, accurate tunnels, that sort of thing), you have to take gravitational effects on light into account when you use laser measurement equipment so as not to have too large an error at the end, for example.
Yes, that difference is, in practical terms, negligable (and you can compensate by doing measurements at several different locations and average). People that work in the field of measurement tend rightly to be fairly anal about this sort of thing, though.
Except that 1) in most countries local calls are metered; and 2) many ISP:s will disconnect you after some time, giving you a new, temporary IP address every time.
Funny, I find a broadband connection incredibly useful, and yet i never watch video over the net...
The real advantages of a broadband conneciton is that you are always connected; you are accessible to others via mail and messaging at all times (just imagine that you had to explicitly connect your telephone to use it, then disconnect it again afterwards). The speed, while very nice, is actually not as important.
I ask this question precisely due to the reasons you give above. I learned forth before learning C, actually, and I'm still fairly comfortable using it if the need arises. My problem is sort of that the need very rarely arises anymore.
For almost any microcontroller, what you will get, development-wise, is a C-compiler (or an assembler in the case of signal processors, as you _want_ to get that close to it to realise it's benefits). About the only advantage forth seems to have in the embedded space today seems to be that the code can be even smaller than assembler, and that advantage is being eroded.
At the same time, forth is Way Cool(tm), and it would be a crying shame to see the ideas slip away. The only thing I believe forth really has against itself is that the choice of keywords are... non-intuitive, let's say. From a readability standpoint, a language that allows you to define a useful, non-trivial function using only punctuation is not optimal. Now and again, I even get this urge to write a forth-like shell before I sober up and come to my senses:-)
I learned forth early on in my programming career; it was very memory and CPU efficient, something that was important on early microcomputers. It was also a great deal of fun (though far less fun to try and understand what you wrote a week earlier...). Today, even small, cheap microcontrollers are able to run fairly sophisticated programs, and it is far easier to cross-compile stuff on a 'big' machine and just drop the compiled code onto the development board.
Forth has (in my eyes) always been about small and efficient. Today, though, embedded apps are more likely to be written in C than in forth, and the "OS as part to the language" thing isn't as compelling today as it was in the eighties. Where is forth being used today, and where do you see it going in the future?
Well, almost. What they can do is argue loss of revenue in both cases - totally ignoring the fact that if you are going to the trouble of using an adbuster, you're not likely to click on it anyway... I didn't say this was reasonable, I just said it is an unpleasant possibility.
As always, there is a flip side to this. If this is made unlawful, that would probably apply to filtering/adbusting proxies as well; for the content providers there isn't much of a difference between replacing their ads and removing them. And once you're down that slippery slope, you could see blocking graphics, disallowing popups or animated gifs or even having your own typeface as intruding upon the websites' rights. This could conceivably mean that websites could legally demand that users use only a certain browser in only its standard configuration, whether the site would work with other setups or not.
I think the problem with this software isn't what they do, but the fact that they are being deployed in a dishonest way. Most people getting them installed will have no idea they are doing that, and they don't give paople an easy way of removing them. The dishonesty stems mainly from the fact that the users are installing an application to do one thing, and these change an unrelated application without this fact being advertised as part of the description of the original application.
I might (and probably am) be very wrong about this, but doesn't the BSD license alllow you to relicence the code as GPL? What I mean is, if I take a piece of BSD licenced code and incorporate into my program, I am allowed to distribute the program under the GPL, right?
The whole point of BSD is that you are allowed to relicence the code in any way you want, as I've understood it. So, there's no way that BSD licenced code could be more restricitve than GPL, as anybody could take BSD code and just relicence as GPL...
I run one Java program today (PCGen). It is really a menu interface to an internal database. My machine is no slouch (600Mzh, 128Mb memory). Lists are _slooow_ to scroll, everything 'hesitates' a moment whenever you do something, and I can sometimes actually see the redrawing. It's like being back on using a graphical shell on my C64... And no, it's not an old Java interpreter either, it's the latest Sun offering for Linux.
I use that program simply because ther is (to my knowledge) no other option under Linux, but it is a pain to use, when such a (computationally) light program simply shouldn't be.
Other Java programs I've tried has suffered from the same agonizing effects. I'd need a whole lot of convincing to ever use a Java application if there was _any_ other option.
Disclaimer: Just my personal experience (but that's the one that counts for me...)
Well, I like Forth - I used it for years. It has _many_ good qualities; readability is unfortunately not one of them. You can write readable Forth, but you have to really work at it, and it's still a pain to understand something you wrote months previously. Understanding someone elses code is even worse (especially once people start doing nifty things to the return stack:-P)
/Janne
Mob developed software - hmmmm...
on
Mob Software
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"I will give you a patch you cannot refuse"
Well, it might work:-)
/Janne
Status of Linux Drivers?
on
ATi Radeon 8500
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I haven't followed ATI for the past couple of years (I've used Nvidia cards). How good are the Linux drivers for current cards, and how much problems have there been with implementing them (specs from ATI, maturity, performance, that sort of thing)?
What I'm wondering, really, is if we are going to see comprehensive support under Linux in the near future, or if these new cards will be glorified framebuffers for the foreseeable future?
*sigh* As I said, the geostationary orbit isn't the only one that's more desirable than average. Plenty of other applications want to use the same kind of orbits for much the same reasons; weather satellites, earth-imaging satellites, and so on.
As for the marble experiment: first of all, the total volume is lower (because you tend to want to use the same kind of orbits). Second, we'd have to (as another post pointed out) imagine not two marbles, but hundreds, maybe thousands.
/Janne
Don't miss other great games
on
Kohan for Linux
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Don't forget than Mindrover is out. I havent lost so much productive time since I played Nethack for the first time years ago...
First, the choice of orbit isn't random; some orbits are better than others (land or sea coverage springs to mind). These orbits will tend to crowd faster than others (there is a real shortage of geostationary orbits by now, for example). Second, they'd be circling in similar orbits for years.
OK, let's stand on random point on a cricket field (though I'd prefer an icehockey rink, but whatever:-) ), and toss marbles. This time, however, we toss them in similar directions. Also, we do another toss about every fifty minutes for the next ten years (or around 100.000 times).
The reason you want _everybody_ to tell where their satellites are is of course that you don't want any accidents. Having a satellite 'hidden' by placing it in a secret orbit defeats that. Sooner otr later some commercial or scientific satellite is going to get too close, and we will have a _very_ expensive incident - and if my memory doesn't fail me, according to international law, US would be solely responsible and would be obliged to pick up the tab.
Worse, if one state feels they can do this with impunity, other states will do so as well. If two reconnaisance satellites from different countries where to destroy each other, it would lead to a lot of tension as both sides would try to determine whether the incident was an accident or deliberate on either part. Having misunderstandings over this kind of thing is not good...
I've never directly or indirectly bought Windows (there's never been any problem buying an OS:less PC here); on the other hand, I've never bought a distribution either.
That's not to say I've never spent any Linux-related money; O'reilly has gotten guite a lot of my hard-earned money over the years, for example:-) I've also bought games from Loki and some sundry other documentation (GTK+ and Gnome programming manuals, for instance).
Slashdot Mirror
> >The point of academia is fame, not fortune.
:)
> actually, the point is knowledge. not fame, not fortune.
Oh no, the point really is both fame and fortune, it's just not polite to admit it
/Janne
Filtering can only go so far. I have extensive filtering in place (pushing things I know I won't read directly to the trash), yet, if I were to actually give attention to each and every mail, I'd do nothing else during the day.
My solution - so far - has been to filter according to sender and subject, and just purge the majority of mailboxes unseen every evening. Then I clear out everything older than a week from the trash. Yes, I'll miss some email that would have been important (for some time, my sister couldn't reach me when she changed mailaddress and I kept deleting her mails without seeing them).
Of course, this is not a tenable solution; I'll miss something of real importance sooner or later, and the fecal matter will hit the air propulsion device. Until then - or until I find a better way - I'll just continue happily deleting...
/Janne
No, it's a GPRS network - 2.5G, it's been called. No Swedish carriers have started yet (they'll probably start offering service in the metropolitan areas early next year).
/Janne
I never used gmc (or mc, for that matter), I've only tried Nautilus to see how it works, and the same goes for every other filemanager I've tried under Linux. In Linux, I prefer using shellcommands rather that dragn'drop. It's not becuse Linux filemanagers are bad - they aren't.
The weird thing is that under Win or NT, I have little problems with using their filemanager, and under MacOS, I'd feel lost without having directory windows everywhere. When I tried a program that gave me the same interface on Linux, I lost all patience within five minutes.
I think it's something about how you think about your system. I see Linux differently than I see MacOS (or Windows...), so my preferred work habits are different too. I saw the same thing happen with a friend who's a long time Mac developer when he started using Linux. After a while, he went more and more to using a shell instead of a filemanager (though he still mixes those uses after almost a year).
/Janne
Apparently it will by default disable antialiasing for widgets that can't handle it. Don't know if xmms will be OK, though.
/Janne
Well, negligable is a point of view, of course... It all depends on what kind of accuracy you want to have; in some applications very small errors will multiply a lot, making even a miniscule error important.
When building large stuff (the Öresund bridge, long, accurate tunnels, that sort of thing), you have to take gravitational effects on light into account when you use laser measurement equipment so as not to have too large an error at the end, for example.
Yes, that difference is, in practical terms, negligable (and you can compensate by doing measurements at several different locations and average). People that work in the field of measurement tend rightly to be fairly anal about this sort of thing, though.
/Janne
Except that 1) in most countries local calls are metered; and 2) many ISP:s will disconnect you after some time, giving you a new, temporary IP address every time.
/Janne
Funny, I find a broadband connection incredibly useful, and yet i never watch video over the net...
The real advantages of a broadband conneciton is that you are always connected; you are accessible to others via mail and messaging at all times (just imagine that you had to explicitly connect your telephone to use it, then disconnect it again afterwards). The speed, while very nice, is actually not as important.
/Janne
There are slackware .tgz:s available - they're just not on red-carpet (as red-carpet has no idea of what to do with them).
/Janne
I ask this question precisely due to the reasons you give above. I learned forth before learning C, actually, and I'm still fairly comfortable using it if the need arises. My problem is sort of that the need very rarely arises anymore.
:-)
For almost any microcontroller, what you will get, development-wise, is a C-compiler (or an assembler in the case of signal processors, as you _want_ to get that close to it to realise it's benefits). About the only advantage forth seems to have in the embedded space today seems to be that the code can be even smaller than assembler, and that advantage is being eroded.
At the same time, forth is Way Cool(tm), and it would be a crying shame to see the ideas slip away. The only thing I believe forth really has against itself is that the choice of keywords are... non-intuitive, let's say. From a readability standpoint, a language that allows you to define a useful, non-trivial function using only punctuation is not optimal. Now and again, I even get this urge to write a forth-like shell before I sober up and come to my senses
/Janne
I learned forth early on in my programming career; it was very memory and CPU efficient, something that was important on early microcomputers. It was also a great deal of fun (though far less fun to try and understand what you wrote a week earlier...). Today, even small, cheap microcontrollers are able to run fairly sophisticated programs, and it is far easier to cross-compile stuff on a 'big' machine and just drop the compiled code onto the development board.
Forth has (in my eyes) always been about small and efficient. Today, though, embedded apps are more likely to be written in C than in forth, and the "OS as part to the language" thing isn't as compelling today as it was in the eighties. Where is forth being used today, and where do you see it going in the future?
/Janne
Well, almost. What they can do is argue loss of revenue in both cases - totally ignoring the fact that if you are going to the trouble of using an adbuster, you're not likely to click on it anyway... I didn't say this was reasonable, I just said it is an unpleasant possibility.
/Janne
As always, there is a flip side to this. If this is made unlawful, that would probably apply to filtering/adbusting proxies as well; for the content providers there isn't much of a difference between replacing their ads and removing them. And once you're down that slippery slope, you could see blocking graphics, disallowing popups or animated gifs or even having your own typeface as intruding upon the websites' rights. This could conceivably mean that websites could legally demand that users use only a certain browser in only its standard configuration, whether the site would work with other setups or not.
I think the problem with this software isn't what they do, but the fact that they are being deployed in a dishonest way. Most people getting them installed will have no idea they are doing that, and they don't give paople an easy way of removing them. The dishonesty stems mainly from the fact that the users are installing an application to do one thing, and these change an unrelated application without this fact being advertised as part of the description of the original application.
/Janne
I might (and probably am) be very wrong about this, but doesn't the BSD license alllow you to relicence the code as GPL? What I mean is, if I take a piece of BSD licenced code and incorporate into my program, I am allowed to distribute the program under the GPL, right?
The whole point of BSD is that you are allowed to relicence the code in any way you want, as I've understood it. So, there's no way that BSD licenced code could be more restricitve than GPL, as anybody could take BSD code and just relicence as GPL...
/Janne
At least the rest of the net is snappy, now that all slashdotters are trying to try out Banjo...
/Janne
I run one Java program today (PCGen). It is really a menu interface to an internal database. My machine is no slouch (600Mzh, 128Mb memory). Lists are _slooow_ to scroll, everything 'hesitates' a moment whenever you do something, and I can sometimes actually see the redrawing. It's like being back on using a graphical shell on my C64... And no, it's not an old Java interpreter either, it's the latest Sun offering for Linux.
I use that program simply because ther is (to my knowledge) no other option under Linux, but it is a pain to use, when such a (computationally) light program simply shouldn't be.
Other Java programs I've tried has suffered from the same agonizing effects. I'd need a whole lot of convincing to ever use a Java application if there was _any_ other option.
Disclaimer: Just my personal experience (but that's the one that counts for me...)
/Janne
Well, I like Forth - I used it for years. It has _many_ good qualities; readability is unfortunately not one of them. You can write readable Forth, but you have to really work at it, and it's still a pain to understand something you wrote months previously. Understanding someone elses code is even worse (especially once people start doing nifty things to the return stack :-P)
/Janne
"I will give you a patch you cannot refuse"
Well, it might work
/Janne
I haven't followed ATI for the past couple of years (I've used Nvidia cards). How good are the Linux drivers for current cards, and how much problems have there been with implementing them (specs from ATI, maturity, performance, that sort of thing)?
What I'm wondering, really, is if we are going to see comprehensive support under Linux in the near future, or if these new cards will be glorified framebuffers for the foreseeable future?
/Janne
*sigh* As I said, the geostationary orbit isn't the only one that's more desirable than average. Plenty of other applications want to use the same kind of orbits for much the same reasons; weather satellites, earth-imaging satellites, and so on.
As for the marble experiment: first of all, the total volume is lower (because you tend to want to use the same kind of orbits). Second, we'd have to (as another post pointed out) imagine not two marbles, but hundreds, maybe thousands.
/Janne
Don't forget than Mindrover is out. I havent lost so much productive time since I played Nethack for the first time years ago...
/Janne
First, the choice of orbit isn't random; some orbits are better than others (land or sea coverage springs to mind). These orbits will tend to crowd faster than others (there is a real shortage of geostationary orbits by now, for example). Second, they'd be circling in similar orbits for years.
:-) ), and toss marbles. This time, however, we toss them in similar directions. Also, we do another toss about every fifty minutes for the next ten years (or around 100.000 times).
OK, let's stand on random point on a cricket field (though I'd prefer an icehockey rink, but whatever
/Janne
The reason you want _everybody_ to tell where their satellites are is of course that you don't want any accidents. Having a satellite 'hidden' by placing it in a secret orbit defeats that. Sooner otr later some commercial or scientific satellite is going to get too close, and we will have a _very_ expensive incident - and if my memory doesn't fail me, according to international law, US would be solely responsible and would be obliged to pick up the tab.
Worse, if one state feels they can do this with impunity, other states will do so as well. If two reconnaisance satellites from different countries where to destroy each other, it would lead to a lot of tension as both sides would try to determine whether the incident was an accident or deliberate on either part. Having misunderstandings over this kind of thing is not good...
/Janne
I for one cant think of a darn thing thats as unreliable as windows
Airline schedules...
/Janne
I've never directly or indirectly bought Windows (there's never been any problem buying an OS:less PC here); on the other hand, I've never bought a distribution either.
:-) I've also bought games from Loki and some sundry other documentation (GTK+ and Gnome programming manuals, for instance).
That's not to say I've never spent any Linux-related money; O'reilly has gotten guite a lot of my hard-earned money over the years, for example