I don't have a problem with yoga in itself. I wouldn't have a problem with a company setting aside some time each week in which the employees that so wish can participate in a yoga class or some other beneifical activity of their choice (massages, aerobics, indoor bandy, walks, a non-work related course or whatever). It is in fact not uncommon in Sweden.
What I feel is wrong is when people have to participate. Unless the work description includes it, nobody should have to participate in such an activity, and people should be able to choose what best fits them, not what a manager has decreed is The Next New Thing, if nothing else because harldy any activity will work for all people. Try telling an employee with arthritis that they must fold themselves into a pretzel (cliché, I know) or stay at work while others get time off for this, and you will have a lawsuit on your hands.
Well, let's rephrase it: "I have a moral duty to make it write as realistically as I can."
Do you really want a word processor that will only generate longhand on photorealistically rendered paper (sometimes with inkblots or smearing, depending on what pen model you load and whether you are left handed or not), complete with a statistically accurate risk of spilling virtual coffee all over the page and having to start all over again? And that will work best using a stylus, rather than a keyboard.
"I have a moral duty to make it store as realistically as I can." - a file system where you have to rifle through hundreds of virtual cabinets actually _looking_ for the correct file; and of course, there is always the chance that the file has slipped behind its wirtual drawer, or that some vistual pages of the file have mysteriously disappeared (try looking around on the virtual floor, nearby files, or asking your virtual secretary for "a piece of paper with 'main.c' on the top").
That's what patent engineers and patent attourneys are for - to make the broadest possible claims on anything you have made, without it being so broad that it invalidates the patent altogether.
Some years ago, I would have written "...broadest possible well-founded, legitimate claims...", but the way the patent system works nowadays, I would be lying...
They are making an unholy amount of noise about copyright, but in reality, the suit is _only_ about a breach of contract on the part of IBM. The suit alleges that IBM helped a competitor to some code even though they had a common project involving that code. The question is whether IBM had a right to give that code to others at a time when their common project (Monterey, I believe) was still active, and whether the failure of that project was in part due to these actions. They have no suits alleging copyright infringement at all.
I have on occasion misclassified mail myself, both ways. A few spams (uncolicited bulk emails) have been full enough of content that I have found interesting that I only after reading it realized this was not from anybody I knew. Conversely, I have a couple of times received mail which was for me , and was genuine, but so poorly formatted (lots of obnoxious html, strange subject and so on) that I deleted it as spam and only later came to understand it was a serious message.
The point is, not even I can do spam classification 100% correctly. It would be a tall order indeed to have an automated tool do it. But does this matter? There are two issues: discarded genuine mail, and non-caught spam.
Discarded genuine mail is not really as big a problem as people make it out to be. Mail is inherently not guaranteed; messages do fall between the cracks now and again. Swallowed by a buggy server, lost in limbo as a network connection goes down, never having a chance due to a misspelt or obsolete address, sent on a wild goose chase due to a temporary DNS error. Mail do disappear. Everybody knows that - or should know. Mistaking a mail for spam is just another crack for it to fall into. As long as the rate is low there really is no problem. And those doing mail that can easily be mistaken for spam will wise up eventually, as they see a disproprtionate amount of their email get lost in the ether.
Missing spam is no real problem either. The big issue is having fifty spam in your inbox every morning, with another fifty arriving during the day. Having one or two a day, on the other hand, is not that painful.
The point is, it is not a binary system: A spam system that misses two spams a day is better than one that misses five, and vastly better than having no system at all. Similarily, one that classifies one genuine message out of a thousand as spam is no disaster. Not good, but not a reason to shut it all down either. If reliability is _that_ important, what are you doing using email in the first place?
Filtering isn't perfect. It won't ever be perfect. That's quite alright. Saying a technique is worthless because it makes an occasional mistake is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Because your other devices will want to keep their identity even when not at home. Imagine having an IP-based telephone as a (slightly contrived) example. You want to be able to route to it no matter what network it resides on at the moment.
I use my laptop in a number of places; home and at the department is the most common places but also others. Moving from place to place is a bit of a pain, though - I need to get a new IP address, change the SMTP server and so on, and setting up other stuff so I am allowed to access it no matter where I am is painful and error prone. If my laptop could keep its identity irrepsectively of where it is physically located on the net it would simplify life a whole lot for me.
NAT works pretty well for the stuff we do today, but it precludes a lot of interesting uses, and is actually quite painful compared to the possible alternative.
Nah. It only works within the same domain. I can't address a device of mine no matter what network it happens to be connected to. Consider having a file server that would push changes to me without me having to actively periodically sync with it. Or IP telephony where you can reach me on my laptop wherever I currently am, as it keeps its own address no matter what.
The big thing with IP6 really isn't the larger address space itself, but that we leave behind the idea of nested domains (other than the 40 bits or so each and every user gets to allocate as they wish).
Or just change the big folders to maildir format (you can change the format on a per-folder basis under the File menu). That will make them a lot quicker.
You gave them an actual, working, email address? How...quaint.
Me, I'm a 66 year old single woman with no income, no education, and lives in a nonexistant Swedish town with a very rude (in Swedish) name. I figured that any site advertiser that want's to target this person must be desperate enough that their ads may actually be amusing.
I humbly beg for forgiveness for having so gravely insulted this exalted language and its enlightened practicioners, the very, by them - no doubt for mystical and profound reasons - walked upon ground, that I am not worthy to even grovel pathetically in.
I do know what Lisp is about. I know enough of it to have written some smaller apps in Common Lisp, and I like to use scheme for when there is need for a built in script language in an app. I am not fully fluent in it, but i'm not clueless either. I _like_ the syntax. I also think it is alright to poke gentle fun at something even if you like it.
*sigh*
Please remind me not to post anything intended to be vaguely amusing or tongue-in-cheek again.
And actually, the 5-7-5 pattern is not strict, and neither is having exactly three lines. H Haiku should always mention - implicitly - a season, and should have a change of perspective or other "turn", perhaps to the point of awaking surprise.
I agree with you fully on each and every drawback you list. My point was, however, that it isn't rpm per se that is the problem (and apt-rpm is a pretty good confirmation of it), and that rpm and apt should not be confused with each other.
That said, up2date and (especially) red carpet are fully as capable as apt; the problem there isn't the tools but how they are deployed. I would actually prefer using red carpet on repositories rather than apt (and synaptic); with apt-rpm it has become semi-standard, however, so that won't probably happen.
Since they all sort of do the same thing, it would be _really_ neat with a server tool that set up a set of directories to be used with apt, red-carpet, urpmi and so on automagically for the server operator - that way everybody could use whatever tool fits them best, and with no extra work for the people running the repositories. Since all those tools are good about differentiating between distributions as well, you could build a server that offered a given set of software for every dist, or even a "mega"-server containing all the stuff anybody will ever want, for every distro out there.
Would be sort of neat if Sourceforge set up something like that.:)
You are probably aware of this, but just to clear some misconceptions:
rpm deb
apt up2date Red Carpet
In other words, rpm (like deb) is a package format. Apt (like up2date, red carpet nad a number of others) is a system for downloading and installing packages, finding and solving dependencies between packages and so on.
Running apt on redhat still means using rpm - it's just that you use apt as the manager, instead of using the rpm tools directly to do stuff manually. As packages, rpm and deb are pretty much equal; rpm has gotten a bad rap in part because rpm based distros typically did not have a package manager earlier, and foremost, because there was no solid, single repository for them with people dedicated solely to find and fix inconsistencies and conflicts before pushing them out to users.
So does a "sewing machine"-type luggable. It's still a luggable.
So does a mini tower, a 15 inch lcd-monitor and a car battery, for that matter, with a serious backpack.
Don't get me wrong - I really like that machine (and would have liked it even better had they actually used the extra width for a larger keyboard), but a laptop it ain't. See it as an easily transportable desktop.
Re:Buying other items with small performance incre
on
P4 3.2GHz Reviews
·
· Score: 1
I have a friend in that business, and their gate-level simulations and VHDL seem to run reasonably well on multiple cpu:s. I know they run big runs over the weekend so they can farm out the work over multiple machines at the company without disturbing normal workflow.
And if single-cpu speed is so critical, at almost any cost, why run on x86 at all? Why not get a big Sun machine; it's not like not most chip design tools don't run on them anyway.
I did not say _nobody_ needed that speed increase (and, unless you fit your critical loop and data in cache, the increase _is_ more like 2-3%); very, very few do actually fit the profile of 1) needing maximum possible speed on 2) one cpu only, and 3) it must be x86 and nothing else.
Re:Buying other items with small performance incre
on
P4 3.2GHz Reviews
·
· Score: 1
I did mention belt-fed toasters (used the wrong word for 'belt').
And yes, of course the analogy is silly. When has that stopped anyone?:)
Re:Buying other items with small performance incre
on
P4 3.2GHz Reviews
·
· Score: 1
But then you can usually get the same 10% speed increase less expensively by adding some more non-bleeding-edge machines instead.
Point is, the difference between today's greatest, and the next-to-greatest in speed is small enough, and the price large enough, that it really is very difficult to motivate going for the bleeding-edge solution anymore.
Back in the days of 100Mhz Pentiums, things really were different; the difference was often the ability to bew able to run an app or not, between the latest and the year-old stuff. The speed difference was typically huge. That is no longer the case.
Re:Buying other items with small performance incre
on
P4 3.2GHz Reviews
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If you need that kind of toast-making performance, you're luch more likely to either build a toaster-farm with dozens (or maybe even hundreds) of inexpensive run-of-the mill toasters, or splurge for a big, heavy-duty continuous-feed made-to-order beltway toaster.
Sort of like getting either a cluster of cheap middle-performing x86 boxes, or a big-iron type machine from Sun or IBM, come to think about it.
I mean, how many apps really critically need that 2% parformance increase, but do not benefit from a dual or quad-cpu machine, a cluster, or a big non-x86 Unix machine?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a problem with yoga in itself. I wouldn't have a problem with a company setting aside some time each week in which the employees that so wish can participate in a yoga class or some other beneifical activity of their choice (massages, aerobics, indoor bandy, walks, a non-work related course or whatever). It is in fact not uncommon in Sweden.
What I feel is wrong is when people have to participate. Unless the work description includes it, nobody should have to participate in such an activity, and people should be able to choose what best fits them, not what a manager has decreed is The Next New Thing, if nothing else because harldy any activity will work for all people. Try telling an employee with arthritis that they must fold themselves into a pretzel (cliché, I know) or stay at work while others get time off for this, and you will have a lawsuit on your hands.
Well, let's rephrase it: "I have a moral duty to make it write as realistically as I can."
Do you really want a word processor that will only generate longhand on photorealistically rendered paper (sometimes with inkblots or smearing, depending on what pen model you load and whether you are left handed or not), complete with a statistically accurate risk of spilling virtual coffee all over the page and having to start all over again? And that will work best using a stylus, rather than a keyboard.
"I have a moral duty to make it store as realistically as I can." - a file system where you have to rifle through hundreds of virtual cabinets actually _looking_ for the correct file; and of course, there is always the chance that the file has slipped behind its wirtual drawer, or that some vistual pages of the file have mysteriously disappeared (try looking around on the virtual floor, nearby files, or asking your virtual secretary for "a piece of paper with 'main.c' on the top").
Um, no thanks.
That's what patent engineers and patent attourneys are for - to make the broadest possible claims on anything you have made, without it being so broad that it invalidates the patent altogether.
...", but the way the patent system works nowadays, I would be lying...
Some years ago, I would have written "...broadest possible well-founded, legitimate claims
They are making an unholy amount of noise about copyright, but in reality, the suit is _only_ about a breach of contract on the part of IBM. The suit alleges that IBM helped a competitor to some code even though they had a common project involving that code. The question is whether IBM had a right to give that code to others at a time when their common project (Monterey, I believe) was still active, and whether the failure of that project was in part due to these actions. They have no suits alleging copyright infringement at all.
I have on occasion misclassified mail myself, both ways. A few spams (uncolicited bulk emails) have been full enough of content that I have found interesting that I only after reading it realized this was not from anybody I knew. Conversely, I have a couple of times received mail which was for me , and was genuine, but so poorly formatted (lots of obnoxious html, strange subject and so on) that I deleted it as spam and only later came to understand it was a serious message.
The point is, not even I can do spam classification 100% correctly. It would be a tall order indeed to have an automated tool do it. But does this matter? There are two issues: discarded genuine mail, and non-caught spam.
Discarded genuine mail is not really as big a problem as people make it out to be. Mail is inherently not guaranteed; messages do fall between the cracks now and again. Swallowed by a buggy server, lost in limbo as a network connection goes down, never having a chance due to a misspelt or obsolete address, sent on a wild goose chase due to a temporary DNS error. Mail do disappear. Everybody knows that - or should know. Mistaking a mail for spam is just another crack for it to fall into. As long as the rate is low there really is no problem. And those doing mail that can easily be mistaken for spam will wise up eventually, as they see a disproprtionate amount of their email get lost in the ether.
Missing spam is no real problem either. The big issue is having fifty spam in your inbox every morning, with another fifty arriving during the day. Having one or two a day, on the other hand, is not that painful.
The point is, it is not a binary system: A spam system that misses two spams a day is better than one that misses five, and vastly better than having no system at all. Similarily, one that classifies one genuine message out of a thousand as spam is no disaster. Not good, but not a reason to shut it all down either. If reliability is _that_ important, what are you doing using email in the first place?
Filtering isn't perfect. It won't ever be perfect. That's quite alright. Saying a technique is worthless because it makes an occasional mistake is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Because your other devices will want to keep their identity even when not at home. Imagine having an IP-based telephone as a (slightly contrived) example. You want to be able to route to it no matter what network it resides on at the moment.
I use my laptop in a number of places; home and at the department is the most common places but also others. Moving from place to place is a bit of a pain, though - I need to get a new IP address, change the SMTP server and so on, and setting up other stuff so I am allowed to access it no matter where I am is painful and error prone. If my laptop could keep its identity irrepsectively of where it is physically located on the net it would simplify life a whole lot for me.
NAT works pretty well for the stuff we do today, but it precludes a lot of interesting uses, and is actually quite painful compared to the possible alternative.
Nah. It only works within the same domain. I can't address a device of mine no matter what network it happens to be connected to. Consider having a file server that would push changes to me without me having to actively periodically sync with it. Or IP telephony where you can reach me on my laptop wherever I currently am, as it keeps its own address no matter what.
The big thing with IP6 really isn't the larger address space itself, but that we leave behind the idea of nested domains (other than the 40 bits or so each and every user gets to allocate as they wish).
Editing menus:
s tr ucture-2.html
To add/remove stuff in the preferences submenu, dor instance, type this link in nautilus:
preferences:
Same for all the other submenus.
If you want to change it for all users, use:
preferences-all-users:
details in:
http://www.gnome.org/learn/admin-guide/2.2/menu
As for full screen screenshots, just press the "PrtScrn/SysRq" key. To get a screenshot of the currently focused window, press Alt-PrtScrn.
Well, he _is_ supposed to be incompetent, after all...
Or just change the big folders to maildir format (you can change the format on a per-folder basis under the File menu). That will make them a lot quicker.
Just so you know, version 1.2 is the old release; you might want to try 1.4 (1.4.3 was just released). Gnome2, faster and more beautiful.
Nope. I am Swedish, and am well aware of the existence of Gävle. I just entered an utterly made-up name in the field.
You gave them an actual, working, email address? How ...quaint.
Me, I'm a 66 year old single woman with no income, no education, and lives in a nonexistant Swedish town with a very rude (in Swedish) name. I figured that any site advertiser that want's to target this person must be desperate enough that their ads may actually be amusing.
I humbly beg for forgiveness for having so gravely insulted this exalted language and its enlightened practicioners, the very, by them - no doubt for mystical and profound reasons - walked upon ground, that I am not worthy to even grovel pathetically in.
I do know what Lisp is about. I know enough of it to have written some smaller apps in Common Lisp, and I like to use scheme for when there is need for a built in script language in an app. I am not fully fluent in it, but i'm not clueless either. I _like_ the syntax. I also think it is alright to poke gentle fun at something even if you like it.
*sigh*
Please remind me not to post anything intended to be vaguely amusing or tongue-in-cheek again.
Hmm. Obscure notation, explained indirectly in a section about something else. Yep, it's a good notation for C++ versioning all right.
On the other hand, maybe the ((((c++)++)++)++)... system will induce LISP-hackers to take a serious look at the language. /Janne
And actually, the 5-7-5 pattern is not strict, and neither is having exactly three lines. H Haiku should always mention - implicitly - a season, and should have a change of perspective or other "turn", perhaps to the point of awaking surprise.
I agree with you fully on each and every drawback you list. My point was, however, that it isn't rpm per se that is the problem (and apt-rpm is a pretty good confirmation of it), and that rpm and apt should not be confused with each other.
:)
That said, up2date and (especially) red carpet are fully as capable as apt; the problem there isn't the tools but how they are deployed. I would actually prefer using red carpet on repositories rather than apt (and synaptic); with apt-rpm it has become semi-standard, however, so that won't probably happen.
Since they all sort of do the same thing, it would be _really_ neat with a server tool that set up a set of directories to be used with apt, red-carpet, urpmi and so on automagically for the server operator - that way everybody could use whatever tool fits them best, and with no extra work for the people running the repositories. Since all those tools are good about differentiating between distributions as well, you could build a server that offered a given set of software for every dist, or even a "mega"-server containing all the stuff anybody will ever want, for every distro out there.
Would be sort of neat if Sourceforge set up something like that.
You are probably aware of this, but just to clear some misconceptions:
rpm deb
apt up2date Red Carpet
In other words, rpm (like deb) is a package format. Apt (like up2date, red carpet nad a number of others) is a system for downloading and installing packages, finding and solving dependencies between packages and so on.
Running apt on redhat still means using rpm - it's just that you use apt as the manager, instead of using the rpm tools directly to do stuff manually. As packages, rpm and deb are pretty much equal; rpm has gotten a bad rap in part because rpm based distros typically did not have a package manager earlier, and foremost, because there was no solid, single repository for them with people dedicated solely to find and fix inconsistencies and conflicts before pushing them out to users.
Sure, t's big, but it still fits in a backpack.
So does a "sewing machine"-type luggable. It's still a luggable.
So does a mini tower, a 15 inch lcd-monitor and a car battery, for that matter, with a serious backpack.
Don't get me wrong - I really like that machine (and would have liked it even better had they actually used the extra width for a larger keyboard), but a laptop it ain't. See it as an easily transportable desktop.
I have a friend in that business, and their gate-level simulations and VHDL seem to run reasonably well on multiple cpu:s. I know they run big runs over the weekend so they can farm out the work over multiple machines at the company without disturbing normal workflow.
And if single-cpu speed is so critical, at almost any cost, why run on x86 at all? Why not get a big Sun machine; it's not like not most chip design tools don't run on them anyway.
I did not say _nobody_ needed that speed increase (and, unless you fit your critical loop and data in cache, the increase _is_ more like 2-3%); very, very few do actually fit the profile of 1) needing maximum possible speed on 2) one cpu only, and 3) it must be x86 and nothing else.
I did mention belt-fed toasters (used the wrong word for 'belt').
:)
And yes, of course the analogy is silly. When has that stopped anyone?
But then you can usually get the same 10% speed increase less expensively by adding some more non-bleeding-edge machines instead.
Point is, the difference between today's greatest, and the next-to-greatest in speed is small enough, and the price large enough, that it really is very difficult to motivate going for the bleeding-edge solution anymore.
Back in the days of 100Mhz Pentiums, things really were different; the difference was often the ability to bew able to run an app or not, between the latest and the year-old stuff. The speed difference was typically huge. That is no longer the case.
If you need that kind of toast-making performance, you're luch more likely to either build a toaster-farm with dozens (or maybe even hundreds) of inexpensive run-of-the mill toasters, or splurge for a big, heavy-duty continuous-feed made-to-order beltway toaster.
Sort of like getting either a cluster of cheap middle-performing x86 boxes, or a big-iron type machine from Sun or IBM, come to think about it.
I mean, how many apps really critically need that 2% parformance increase, but do not benefit from a dual or quad-cpu machine, a cluster, or a big non-x86 Unix machine?
Would you notice any difference?