He's looking for fast prototyping, and he doesn't need functionality. He can ostensibly do the work in HTML, though that isn't his job; he just doesn't want to spend a week or two developing a prototype when he might be sending out a dozen for a single job. It's inefficient.
But then you'd need a new protocol; the current one doesn't have much free space. Or you could add it to the data portion of the packet, but then you'd have more overhead and less useful data.
So in this case, it's a matter of whether it should be in the GUI or require a transparent, simple registry edit.
Since it's a potential annoyance to absolutely everyone, it should be in the GUI, and probably not in a menu or the control panel; there should be a button on boot that says "Play system sound on startup [x]".
There are no more than two or three options you have that affect user experience at boot, so it doesn't really hurt to put the options there.
It would be nice to have a full and complete MinGW distribution like that--the only distro I know of doesn't even come with MSYS, unfortunately, so no bash. (Though you can correct that in a decent amount of time and then make your own distribution just as quickly.)
Okay, so I can spend five times as much money for forty times as much storage but a bit less convenience. Plus I can put a full installation of an operating system on there if I want without disabling logging or whatnot.
If you have the spare cash, I'd say go for the portable HD.
It is totally NOT okay for telephone directory assistance.
Understanding human speech is quite difficult. Directory assistance requires the computer to parse pretty much arbitrary words, which is the most difficult task in understanding speech--you have an entire lexicon and can't weight any set of words much. On the other hand, if you're creating an automated flight booking system, then you only have a limited range of vocabulary that you even need to consider. That is much easier--or at least, you get a much greater confidence in your accuracy.
If you use statically linked libraries, you have a dozen separate security holes rather than one. Are you in the habit of downloading updates and patches for all your programs every week?
And how likely is it that one application will repair the flaw before the library vendor releases the patch? You've only reduced your window of vulnerability when a new flaw is introduced, and increased the window a fair bit due to the time necessary for the vendors to test and roll out patches for the patched library.
Granted, if the library patch breaks a critical application, either all of your programs remain vulnerable or you go through the trouble of relinking the single application that broke. However, in UNIX, that shouldn't be terribly difficult, just a matter of altering LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Men can lactate with hormone treatments. In another ten years, it might not be terribly rare and unheard of for them to do so. I would support this, but I plan never to have children--I like not being a murderer.
Breastfeeding may well be best for all involved, but if there's some reason preventing breastfeeding, then there's no particular reason for the mother to be the one stuck with caring for the child. Likewise, once the child is weaned, there's no reason for the mother to be the primary caregiver.
You said: "However, women are built by design to be better nurturers. So if they decide never to have kids and to only work, they are already sacrificing parts of their bodies, as well as parts of their nature. So a woman is not sacrificing her career in favor of her husband's/partner's career."
Yes, she is; there are simply more considerations than that. But sacrificing part of your body is a minor thing; you didn't choose what features your body would have. Sacrificing your career, something you chose and (ostensibly) enjoy, is a much graver decision. It's a matter of who you are rather than what you are.
Or, since you have full access to the kernel, you could easily reverse engineer the driver spec by monitoring the driver's activity and reimplement it in all your open source glory.
Let's see. MSVS supports C, C++, VB, C#, and J#. GCC supports C, C++, Java, Fortran, Ada, Objective-C, and Objective-C++. So yes, MSVS supports more languages than GCC, winning five to seven.
It's not about the number of languages supported; most everything is done in C/C++ or Java these days. And if you're using Java, you probably use Sun's Java tools. Rather, MSVS is one of the few professional IDEs for Windows, made by those who know the OS (and thus programming for it) best. People use it for the same reason they get support contracts from Redhat rather than a third party.
You could create a patent license saying "This patent is free for non-commercial use" or "This patent is free for any GPL application". The latter doesn't stop someone from using a GPL codec for a commercial application (i.e. MS Zune reading iTMS music), given that a codec is an individual work and an application using that is a separate work, at least potentially. It'd be a battle of lawyers at any rate.
The former, however, might pose problems for Debian and Ubuntu, which would not be happy to have the codecs in their official repositories.
Try compiling OOo with GCJ rather than javac. GCJ compiles Java to object code just like C. Though it'd take a few days, you might gain a considerable boost.
Right on all counts, except for the case of men with hairy armpits. That's unappealing, though, so call for all men to shave their underarms! I already do my part.
There are other means that are much more effective. Supposedly fifty percent of teenagers who take an abstinence vow have sex within the subsequent year.
The choice isn't between pregnancy and abstinence. It's between pregnancy, spending a bit of money on contraceptives, and abstinence. But if people don't know where to get contraceptives, they will not have the third option.
So now it's the teenage "live-forever-no-consequences" instinct against the prohibitions instilled by their parents, who quite obviously had sex. How do you expect it to turn out? And do you want one mistake to dominate a person's whole life? Or even simply derail it for a year? Because you don't want people to wear a piece of rubber?
A truly advanced society would have eliminated rape and achieved a high enough standard of medicine to eliminate the need for medical abortions.
Societal support might go a ways toward eliminating rape, and contraceptives could be supplied to prevent pregnancies in such emergencies. Incest...well, that's a matter of choice.
2d barcodes can't hold that much data; or rather, their data density sucks. You've got an analog portrait and you're trying to convert that to a binary 2d barcode in perhaps four times the area, with pixels that measure millimeters across.
If the power goes down, they won't authenticate passports. Perhaps at the Mexican border, they'll stop anyone who looks Hispanic until the power returns. Perhaps at LAX, they'll stop anyone who speaks with a non-American accent (those who have American accents have either prepared enough that the passport will clear, or have been in this country for some significant length of time and probably gotten a valid passport). And perhaps they'll have a standard battery backup.
Most of the time, your passport isn't carefully scanned. The chip will be used merely as another means of authentication, not as mass surveillance; that would take too much time.
Slashdot Mirror
He's looking for fast prototyping, and he doesn't need functionality. He can ostensibly do the work in HTML, though that isn't his job; he just doesn't want to spend a week or two developing a prototype when he might be sending out a dozen for a single job. It's inefficient.
But then you'd need a new protocol; the current one doesn't have much free space. Or you could add it to the data portion of the packet, but then you'd have more overhead and less useful data.
But does the government care? Hardly.
But it actually works a fair portion of the time. A memory management issue, perhaps? That would probably explain why restarting works.
So in this case, it's a matter of whether it should be in the GUI or require a transparent, simple registry edit.
Since it's a potential annoyance to absolutely everyone, it should be in the GUI, and probably not in a menu or the control panel; there should be a button on boot that says "Play system sound on startup [x]".
There are no more than two or three options you have that affect user experience at boot, so it doesn't really hurt to put the options there.
For the former: restart it (make your homepage about:blank for safety) and ctrl-shift-del.
For the latter: Firefox has profiles; use them.
Windows support has suddenly gotten better, it seems.
But if we all got by on a single lightbulb, there'd be even more savings!
It would be nice to have a full and complete MinGW distribution like that--the only distro I know of doesn't even come with MSYS, unfortunately, so no bash. (Though you can correct that in a decent amount of time and then make your own distribution just as quickly.)
Okay, so I can spend five times as much money for forty times as much storage but a bit less convenience. Plus I can put a full installation of an operating system on there if I want without disabling logging or whatnot.
If you have the spare cash, I'd say go for the portable HD.
It is totally NOT okay for telephone directory assistance.
Understanding human speech is quite difficult. Directory assistance requires the computer to parse pretty much arbitrary words, which is the most difficult task in understanding speech--you have an entire lexicon and can't weight any set of words much. On the other hand, if you're creating an automated flight booking system, then you only have a limited range of vocabulary that you even need to consider. That is much easier--or at least, you get a much greater confidence in your accuracy.
"Re-inventing the wheel over and over needs to stop - it's a waste of programming talent."
Quiet! I want to keep my job!
If you use statically linked libraries, you have a dozen separate security holes rather than one. Are you in the habit of downloading updates and patches for all your programs every week?
And how likely is it that one application will repair the flaw before the library vendor releases the patch? You've only reduced your window of vulnerability when a new flaw is introduced, and increased the window a fair bit due to the time necessary for the vendors to test and roll out patches for the patched library.
Granted, if the library patch breaks a critical application, either all of your programs remain vulnerable or you go through the trouble of relinking the single application that broke. However, in UNIX, that shouldn't be terribly difficult, just a matter of altering LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
I have a friend working on that right now in Linux.
(Not really, but he *is* porting BDB to Linux kernelspace for a filesystem he's writing.)
Men can lactate with hormone treatments. In another ten years, it might not be terribly rare and unheard of for them to do so. I would support this, but I plan never to have children--I like not being a murderer.
Breastfeeding may well be best for all involved, but if there's some reason preventing breastfeeding, then there's no particular reason for the mother to be the one stuck with caring for the child. Likewise, once the child is weaned, there's no reason for the mother to be the primary caregiver.
You said: "However, women are built by design to be better nurturers. So if they decide never to have kids and to only work, they are already sacrificing parts of their bodies, as well as parts of their nature. So a woman is not sacrificing her career in favor of her husband's/partner's career."
Yes, she is; there are simply more considerations than that. But sacrificing part of your body is a minor thing; you didn't choose what features your body would have. Sacrificing your career, something you chose and (ostensibly) enjoy, is a much graver decision. It's a matter of who you are rather than what you are.
That's what your girlfriend wonders.
Me. Though I prefer having sex either in the early morning or midafternoon.
Or, since you have full access to the kernel, you could easily reverse engineer the driver spec by monitoring the driver's activity and reimplement it in all your open source glory.
Let's see. MSVS supports C, C++, VB, C#, and J#. GCC supports C, C++, Java, Fortran, Ada, Objective-C, and Objective-C++. So yes, MSVS supports more languages than GCC, winning five to seven.
It's not about the number of languages supported; most everything is done in C/C++ or Java these days. And if you're using Java, you probably use Sun's Java tools. Rather, MSVS is one of the few professional IDEs for Windows, made by those who know the OS (and thus programming for it) best. People use it for the same reason they get support contracts from Redhat rather than a third party.
You could create a patent license saying "This patent is free for non-commercial use" or "This patent is free for any GPL application". The latter doesn't stop someone from using a GPL codec for a commercial application (i.e. MS Zune reading iTMS music), given that a codec is an individual work and an application using that is a separate work, at least potentially. It'd be a battle of lawyers at any rate.
The former, however, might pose problems for Debian and Ubuntu, which would not be happy to have the codecs in their official repositories.
Try compiling OOo with GCJ rather than javac. GCJ compiles Java to object code just like C. Though it'd take a few days, you might gain a considerable boost.
Right on all counts, except for the case of men with hairy armpits. That's unappealing, though, so call for all men to shave their underarms! I already do my part.
When it gets its first doctorate.
There are other means that are much more effective. Supposedly fifty percent of teenagers who take an abstinence vow have sex within the subsequent year.
The choice isn't between pregnancy and abstinence. It's between pregnancy, spending a bit of money on contraceptives, and abstinence. But if people don't know where to get contraceptives, they will not have the third option.
So now it's the teenage "live-forever-no-consequences" instinct against the prohibitions instilled by their parents, who quite obviously had sex. How do you expect it to turn out? And do you want one mistake to dominate a person's whole life? Or even simply derail it for a year? Because you don't want people to wear a piece of rubber?
A truly advanced society would have eliminated rape and achieved a high enough standard of medicine to eliminate the need for medical abortions.
Societal support might go a ways toward eliminating rape, and contraceptives could be supplied to prevent pregnancies in such emergencies. Incest...well, that's a matter of choice.
2d barcodes can't hold that much data; or rather, their data density sucks. You've got an analog portrait and you're trying to convert that to a binary 2d barcode in perhaps four times the area, with pixels that measure millimeters across.
If the power goes down, they won't authenticate passports. Perhaps at the Mexican border, they'll stop anyone who looks Hispanic until the power returns. Perhaps at LAX, they'll stop anyone who speaks with a non-American accent (those who have American accents have either prepared enough that the passport will clear, or have been in this country for some significant length of time and probably gotten a valid passport). And perhaps they'll have a standard battery backup.
Most of the time, your passport isn't carefully scanned. The chip will be used merely as another means of authentication, not as mass surveillance; that would take too much time.