I would love to see what Dell has to say about the OEM agreements with MS. After all they did support Linux for a little while. Now that seems to have gone by the waist-side.
I won't make you go digging (quoting from the above article):
The states intend to introduce a series of documents detailing discussions Microsoft had with Dell Computer Corp. with the goal of giving Dell a "hard time" about selling Linux desktops. Dell last year pulled its desktop Linux line.
The ramifications? Well, people are going to, like have to, like, train for the new environment! Quick, call the cops!
A much more serious ramification is that researchers are noting that children exposed to gravity seem to have a much greater facility with walking down staircases than those who aren't. It's a mutation!
The director's cut of FotR (due out on DVD a month before the TT releases in theatres) will contain over 30-40 minutes of new footage, including Galadriel's gifts.
Great! That was something else I thought was important that was missing.
I especially want to see Gimli's request with Galadriel's and Celeborn's reaction.
Can anybody provide information or point to a reference that would delineate which of these new features can and cannot be found in the latest stable OpenOffice?
I know there's no Adabas in OpenOffice, but other than that?
Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?
on
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why does/. have to concentrate on this film?
Because CmdrTaco likes the books and the movie, a lot.
That's what I like about this place. The editors aren't afraid to show their own tastes in their story selection. They aren't constantly second guessing themselves saying things like "I wonder if this story will have the right geekiness to have wide geek appeal?"
They just publish what they like. This place has character. Unlike most media.
I'd never seen that letter from Tolkien! Kind of gives me the big head that I was apparently so intune with Tolkien about Bombadil.
But I think leaving something like that out of the movie was entirely reasonable.
Setting aside the length of the film issue, why is this entirely reasonable?
It deprives the movie goers of a delightful character and a mystery to take away with them.
Maybe because movie goers like everything wrapped up in neat little endings? I can see where the Bombadil characters would have been an enigma to most people, but that's his function.
Things like this are what have aggravated me as to the common description of the Movie you hear. "It's so faithful to the books!" When they leave out things like Bombadil.
I like the Movie, I like the Books. I don't think it's a tragedy that they aren't exactly the same story. I don't think the movie was that faithful to the books, however.
Sam doesn't step outside his slightly-dim-lickspittle/bumpkin role until Books 4 and 6 of LoTR...
Well, they still have time to establish Sam as the everyman hero, but they could have presaged it by showing that Sam overcame his fear of water to keep his promise and go with Frodo. Why leave that out? It would have taken only a quick scene when they first got on the boats to show Sam's distaste for boats and water.
I reread the books and I have to say that I'm disappointed in a number of places with the adaptation.
Tom Bombadil is important to set the atmosphere and background of Middle Earth. I feel that the point is that some things are older and more mysterious than can be explained, even though they seem so warm and familiar.
Events that would shed light into the relationship between Frodo and Sam were edited badly. Why was the Hobbit's (and especially Sam's) natural fear of water not mentioned? (Did I miss it?) It would have added great dramatic weight to Sam's almost drowning at the end. Why was Sam not present at the viewing of the mirror? His vision was important in the book, but deleted completely from the movie.
To my mind, Sam is the everyman hero of the books, yet his role seems to be being played down. This nobility of the common man (or Hobbit) is an important message of the books and is being glossed over.
I would have liked to have seen the Dinner scene at Rivendell where Frodo meets Gloin. The discussions at that Dinner sets the background for Rivendell, what's going on in the rest of Middle Earth, etc.
I understand why they rewrote the scene at the River when the riders were closing in, but it's unfortunate that Frodo's challenge to the riders and the breaking of his sword are missing. Like I say, I understand that they wanted to setup the love story between Arwen and Aragorn so they decided to give Arwen a big role there. Actually, if I were to criticize the books, I would have to say that women were not given important enough roles, so this all may be to the good.
I also liked the scene in the book where Gandalf realizes that he's facing a Balrog...
"A Balrog," muttered Gandalf. "Now I understand." He faltered and leaned heavily on his staff. "What an evil fortune! And I am already weary."
Don't know why that was changed (do I not remember the movie correctly?).
Now, admittedly, they had to edit for length. I'm not sure what else I would have left out instead. I guess I would have liked to have seen 6 movies on all 6 books, but perhaps that wouldn't have sold well.
Taking into account the necessity to edit for length, I guess I would only really criticize the deemphasis on Sam's role.
Sorry if I've misrepresented the movie above. I've only seen it once. I don't like to watch movies more than once a year or so. I've just never seen a movie that didn't seem flat if I tried to watch it again too soon and I hate having that experience with movies that I otherwise enjoy.
In fact that's what he did (yEnc is based on that code).
He did get the code out there, but he didn't push the concept for years. He's to be applauded for not putting any sort of restrictive copyright on the original code, but he actively discouraged people from using his code.
And note that standard does not mean the same as common. It's like the difference between science and common sense.
I think you mischaracterize the Internet standards process here. Internet standards, in the RFC process, have always been about competing implementations that get thrown out there for people to test extensively. Eventually, after widespread acceptance, they get elevated to the level of Standard. I seriously doubt that yEnc is there yet, but perhaps it will light the way toward a better Standard eventually.
Would you rebuild your entire system and re-install all your software just for a 20% increase in CPU speed? I wouldn't.
This is a poor analogy. If you don't like yEnc, don't use it. Nobody's asking you to switch to a new standard overnight. Uuencode and base64 aren't going anywhere. Now, true, you might lose out on not being able to download from those who do like yEnc, but that's like saying "nobody should use Java because I don't like it and I won't benefit from Java code on the net".
Boeing made the only move that they could at the time.
With everyone worried about the effect the Sept. 11 had on an already-faltering economy, and the fact that Boeing could count on their Defense Business to boom to compensate to some extent, they could have waited a few weeks to announce their definite plans.
Didn't they announce layoffs before the week was out? I'd say they were trying to push Congress that was already debating the Airline Bailout bill into action.
It's all conspiracy theory level observation, sure, but I still think it looks fishy.
A great comfort to the 23,000+ people who are slated to get laid off by Boeing's commercial aircraft business this year, as a direct result of all the brain-dead Bush administration's "security" hysteria preventing the traveling public from... traveling.
This seems like revisionist history to me. Putting aside that it may or may not be true that current administration generated hysteria is actually holding down the traveling industry to some extent, Boeing announced those layoffs within a few days after Sept. 11th.
As I recall, the travel industry was suppressed at that point due to all flights being grounded. A sensible move to hold down hysteria actually seeing as nobody wanted to fly anyway - people were cancelling reservations right and left anyway - and it probably was good that security was completely reviewed before starting up again.
It was a cynical move by Boeing to announce layoffs so soon. Boeing was trying to feed into the general hysteria and line up for bailout bucks themselves.
Not really comparable to the betamax vs. VHS debate. I've not seen anyone arguing that the alternatives, uuencode or base64, are better than yEnc, just that yEnc has serious deficiencies.
Perhaps Mr. Nixon is arguing that yEnc is worse than some wholly theoretical alternative.
Some of Mr. Nixon's points do seem interesting, but if he is convinced that there is a better alternative to be put forward, he should get the code out there. Anything else is just sniping.
This kind of speed would not be for connecting computers to each other directly, but rather big comm backbones. On each end, fast switches would split this out into more manageble rates.
You might be forgetting that whitespace is significant in XML and the poster wanted to denote some length to the crickets chirping with the added whitespace.
Stallman advocates free software. This is an economic argument since software (except games, and maybe aimless academic study) is a tool for engaging in economic activity and the creation of wealth.
Speech is a tool for engaging in economic activity and the creation of wealth. I don't think that the value of Free Speech is best evaluated in economic terms.
Actually, a lot of people use Oracle on Linux in Enterprise settings. Linux is an Open Soure application. You can lose a DB through filesystem corruption.
I believe you are mistaken about Oracle. I believe it does have a license that disclaims fitness for any particular purpose.
I could be mistaken, but I think I saw that last time I installed Oracle.
I like being able to post in a public forum and get private email back. I do it all the time on Usenet.
I don't have an unlisted phone number, either. Never had.
Having said that, I don't put my private email on slashdot. Used to, but some of the people here kinda scare me. Anybody who'd devote so much of their lives to trolling, well, they got a screw loose and many of them write automation to crap flood slashdot. I don't want that to happen to my inbox.
In any case, I don't feel that I should make myself difficult to reach just to avoid spam. You know, they solved the problem of junk faxes back in 1996, the problem of spam could be solved with appropriate legislation. I'm starting to suspect that the lawmakers want this problem to fester until they can use it as a justification to shut down all anonymous use of the Internet.
Hmmmm... For somebody as paranoid as I am, you'd think I'd be more careful with my identity...
But, the previous poster was referring to EULAs and bugs and how they don't put up with that from Larry Ellison.
I anticipated your argument in my comment by pointing out that you can get support contracts for a lot of Free Software today.
Btw, why do you think that Apache is different? Actually, you can get a support contract for Apache from Covalent, but why do few people have one?
Because, it just works. You don't really need one. I think this could be true of a lot of other Open Source products in the future. This would lead to much more reliable systems all around, eh?
But, if you must have a tie to grab, I think there will be more and more ties getting into the "grab me" business for Enterprise support of Open Source/Free Software.
If an Oracle database blows up, it matters not what Larry Ellison says.
Really? Can you cite specific examples where damages have been awarded based on buggy software when those warrantees had been explicitly renounced in the EULAs?
What does happen is that if customers complain too loudly, the manufacturers become concerned about their reputation.
Which is why various organizations have sprung up to offer support for Free Software products, like Covalent for Apache, Linuxcare (and the distro vendors) for Linux, several firms for Postgresql, etc.
The real issue is economic, though. If we use an open source product, we have no one to modify that product (bug fixes, enhancements, etc.) and no timetable on which to operate.
Like Commercial software vendors give you timetables for bug fixes? They don't generally, in my experience. The commercial vendors can and do EOL products (with outstanding bugs) you depend on requiring you to completely retool your operation. This couldn't happen with Open Source.
Without commenting on whether open source/free software is a good thing or not, what determines whether it is a good thing or not is a matter of economics.
I disagree. What you offer is a false dichotomy. Either Open Source/Free Software is justified on the economics or it's not.
Why must this be justified on the basis of economics? Would you recommend a review of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution based on economic impact? Are there, perhaps, other interests and principles at work that may justify Open Source/Free Software?
Literate Programing: What you write, should make sence. Variables such as a, b, c, thing, object, stuff, crap etc should not be allowed. A new programmer should be able to come into your shop, read the code and it should make sense.
Maybe you mean something different here, but Literate Programming is a field, invented by Donald Knuth, that has little to do with what you are saying here.
There are many good reference, try this one, for example.
AFAICT, the tradition of Literate Programming comes out of Mathematics where proofs are given as narrative, but the equations (programs by analogy) are terse.
For example, this example, written by Knuth himself, contains many example of terse variable names like rx, h, t, l, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Dell stopped support for Linux? I wonder why?
I won't make you go digging (quoting from the above article):
A much more serious ramification is that researchers are noting that children exposed to gravity seem to have a much greater facility with walking down staircases than those who aren't. It's a mutation!
Great! That was something else I thought was important that was missing.
I especially want to see Gimli's request with Galadriel's and Celeborn's reaction.
I know there's no Adabas in OpenOffice, but other than that?
Because CmdrTaco likes the books and the movie, a lot.
That's what I like about this place. The editors aren't afraid to show their own tastes in their story selection. They aren't constantly second guessing themselves saying things like "I wonder if this story will have the right geekiness to have wide geek appeal?"
They just publish what they like. This place has character. Unlike most media.
I'd never seen that letter from Tolkien! Kind of gives me the big head that I was apparently so intune with Tolkien about Bombadil.
Setting aside the length of the film issue, why is this entirely reasonable?
It deprives the movie goers of a delightful character and a mystery to take away with them.
Maybe because movie goers like everything wrapped up in neat little endings? I can see where the Bombadil characters would have been an enigma to most people, but that's his function.
Things like this are what have aggravated me as to the common description of the Movie you hear. "It's so faithful to the books!" When they leave out things like Bombadil.
I like the Movie, I like the Books. I don't think it's a tragedy that they aren't exactly the same story. I don't think the movie was that faithful to the books, however.
This vision, and how it sets up what happens at the cliff is important in their picking up Golem as a travelling partner.
That's pretty important, I think.
Well, they still have time to establish Sam as the everyman hero, but they could have presaged it by showing that Sam overcame his fear of water to keep his promise and go with Frodo. Why leave that out? It would have taken only a quick scene when they first got on the boats to show Sam's distaste for boats and water.
Tom Bombadil is important to set the atmosphere and background of Middle Earth. I feel that the point is that some things are older and more mysterious than can be explained, even though they seem so warm and familiar.
Events that would shed light into the relationship between Frodo and Sam were edited badly. Why was the Hobbit's (and especially Sam's) natural fear of water not mentioned? (Did I miss it?) It would have added great dramatic weight to Sam's almost drowning at the end. Why was Sam not present at the viewing of the mirror? His vision was important in the book, but deleted completely from the movie.
To my mind, Sam is the everyman hero of the books, yet his role seems to be being played down. This nobility of the common man (or Hobbit) is an important message of the books and is being glossed over.
I would have liked to have seen the Dinner scene at Rivendell where Frodo meets Gloin. The discussions at that Dinner sets the background for Rivendell, what's going on in the rest of Middle Earth, etc.
I understand why they rewrote the scene at the River when the riders were closing in, but it's unfortunate that Frodo's challenge to the riders and the breaking of his sword are missing. Like I say, I understand that they wanted to setup the love story between Arwen and Aragorn so they decided to give Arwen a big role there. Actually, if I were to criticize the books, I would have to say that women were not given important enough roles, so this all may be to the good.
I also liked the scene in the book where Gandalf realizes that he's facing a Balrog...
Don't know why that was changed (do I not remember the movie correctly?).
Now, admittedly, they had to edit for length. I'm not sure what else I would have left out instead. I guess I would have liked to have seen 6 movies on all 6 books, but perhaps that wouldn't have sold well.
Taking into account the necessity to edit for length, I guess I would only really criticize the deemphasis on Sam's role.
Sorry if I've misrepresented the movie above. I've only seen it once. I don't like to watch movies more than once a year or so. I've just never seen a movie that didn't seem flat if I tried to watch it again too soon and I hate having that experience with movies that I otherwise enjoy.
He did get the code out there, but he didn't push the concept for years. He's to be applauded for not putting any sort of restrictive copyright on the original code, but he actively discouraged people from using his code.
I think you mischaracterize the Internet standards process here. Internet standards, in the RFC process, have always been about competing implementations that get thrown out there for people to test extensively. Eventually, after widespread acceptance, they get elevated to the level of Standard. I seriously doubt that yEnc is there yet, but perhaps it will light the way toward a better Standard eventually.
This is a poor analogy. If you don't like yEnc, don't use it. Nobody's asking you to switch to a new standard overnight. Uuencode and base64 aren't going anywhere. Now, true, you might lose out on not being able to download from those who do like yEnc, but that's like saying "nobody should use Java because I don't like it and I won't benefit from Java code on the net".
With everyone worried about the effect the Sept. 11 had on an already-faltering economy, and the fact that Boeing could count on their Defense Business to boom to compensate to some extent, they could have waited a few weeks to announce their definite plans.
Didn't they announce layoffs before the week was out? I'd say they were trying to push Congress that was already debating the Airline Bailout bill into action.
It's all conspiracy theory level observation, sure, but I still think it looks fishy.
This seems like revisionist history to me. Putting aside that it may or may not be true that current administration generated hysteria is actually holding down the traveling industry to some extent, Boeing announced those layoffs within a few days after Sept. 11th.
As I recall, the travel industry was suppressed at that point due to all flights being grounded. A sensible move to hold down hysteria actually seeing as nobody wanted to fly anyway - people were cancelling reservations right and left anyway - and it probably was good that security was completely reviewed before starting up again.
It was a cynical move by Boeing to announce layoffs so soon. Boeing was trying to feed into the general hysteria and line up for bailout bucks themselves.
Not really comparable to the betamax vs. VHS debate. I've not seen anyone arguing that the alternatives, uuencode or base64, are better than yEnc, just that yEnc has serious deficiencies.
Perhaps Mr. Nixon is arguing that yEnc is worse than some wholly theoretical alternative.
Some of Mr. Nixon's points do seem interesting, but if he is convinced that there is a better alternative to be put forward, he should get the code out there. Anything else is just sniping.
Oh yeah... it is... Wish I could retract my comment.
This kind of speed would not be for connecting computers to each other directly, but rather big comm backbones. On each end, fast switches would split this out into more manageble rates.
</crickets>
Oh come on now, that should be:
<crickets/>
You might be forgetting that whitespace is significant in XML and the poster wanted to denote some length to the crickets chirping with the added whitespace.
Or not...
Heh, instead of:
Editor_in_Chief_Time@aol.com
Technology_Correspondent_Time@aol.com
They probably made them take things like:
editbob391@aol.com
techcjoe93@aol.com
Speech is a tool for engaging in economic activity and the creation of wealth. I don't think that the value of Free Speech is best evaluated in economic terms.
I believe you are mistaken about Oracle. I believe it does have a license that disclaims fitness for any particular purpose.
I could be mistaken, but I think I saw that last time I installed Oracle.
I like being able to post in a public forum and get private email back. I do it all the time on Usenet.
I don't have an unlisted phone number, either. Never had.
Having said that, I don't put my private email on slashdot. Used to, but some of the people here kinda scare me. Anybody who'd devote so much of their lives to trolling, well, they got a screw loose and many of them write automation to crap flood slashdot. I don't want that to happen to my inbox.
In any case, I don't feel that I should make myself difficult to reach just to avoid spam. You know, they solved the problem of junk faxes back in 1996, the problem of spam could be solved with appropriate legislation. I'm starting to suspect that the lawmakers want this problem to fester until they can use it as a justification to shut down all anonymous use of the Internet.
Hmmmm... For somebody as paranoid as I am, you'd think I'd be more careful with my identity...
I anticipated your argument in my comment by pointing out that you can get support contracts for a lot of Free Software today.
Btw, why do you think that Apache is different? Actually, you can get a support contract for Apache from Covalent, but why do few people have one?
Because, it just works. You don't really need one. I think this could be true of a lot of other Open Source products in the future. This would lead to much more reliable systems all around, eh?
But, if you must have a tie to grab, I think there will be more and more ties getting into the "grab me" business for Enterprise support of Open Source/Free Software.
Really? Can you cite specific examples where damages have been awarded based on buggy software when those warrantees had been explicitly renounced in the EULAs?
What does happen is that if customers complain too loudly, the manufacturers become concerned about their reputation.
Which is why various organizations have sprung up to offer support for Free Software products, like Covalent for Apache, Linuxcare (and the distro vendors) for Linux, several firms for Postgresql, etc.
Like Commercial software vendors give you timetables for bug fixes? They don't generally, in my experience. The commercial vendors can and do EOL products (with outstanding bugs) you depend on requiring you to completely retool your operation. This couldn't happen with Open Source.
I disagree. What you offer is a false dichotomy. Either Open Source/Free Software is justified on the economics or it's not.
Why must this be justified on the basis of economics? Would you recommend a review of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution based on economic impact? Are there, perhaps, other interests and principles at work that may justify Open Source/Free Software?
This wiki on the lua programming language seems to be fairly well organized.
Maybe you mean something different here, but Literate Programming is a field, invented by Donald Knuth, that has little to do with what you are saying here.
There are many good reference, try this one, for example.
AFAICT, the tradition of Literate Programming comes out of Mathematics where proofs are given as narrative, but the equations (programs by analogy) are terse.
For example, this example, written by Knuth himself, contains many example of terse variable names like rx, h, t, l, etc.