But I've had way more success getting the Task Manager to pop up on a machine with a runaway process than getting an xterm to pop up allowing me to type 'kill -9'.
Well, that's why you invoke a virtual console, not an xterm. Ctrl-Alt-F[1-6] from X, Alt-F[1-6] from a console.
From the Help:About box on Microsoft Internet Explorer:
Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc.
"Hinduism" was a term invented by Westerners for "the whole set of religious beliefs of the Indian people who aren't identifiably followers of a systemized religion". It is accordingly exceedingly difficult, on the margins, to systematically separate "Hinduism" from "Indian cultural practice".
By analogy, imagine Chinese Traditonal Religion had been given the label "Hanism" by Western scholars. Now, would ancestor reverence, a cultural tradition which is supported by Hanist religious arguments, be "Chinese ancestor reverence" or "Hanist ancestor reverence"? One could, for example, look to Chinese Christians to try to work it out; but some Chinese Christians engage in it as a cultural practice, while others reject it as idolatry. So are the Christians who revere their ancestors being Hanist-Christian syncretists, or are they merely being culturally-Chinese Christians?
Similarly, the caste system is rejected by some non-Hindus in India and accepted by other non-Hindus in India. So is it a Hindu practice or an Indian practice? Especially now that some self-declared Hindus reject the caste system?
So neither "Hindu caste system" not "Indian caste system" is very significantly more "correct" than the other. Both identify the system, and both have inaccuracies if taken entirely literally.
there aren't really any needs for new crops anywhere at all.
Current cropland and wastes, with the oils recovered at an impossible 100% efficiency, won't replace even 15% of current world petroleum usage; with the current annual growth in demand, that's a pittiance with even a short projection into the future. Any truly significant use of biodiesel will require some form of cultivation of currently uncultivated areas. Same is true for ethanol. And in both the biodiesel and ethanol cases, the uncultivated land that would be cheapest, easiest, and most productive to convert to biofuel production is currently rainforest.
There are other processes to make biodiesel, yes; but they are unproven commercially and would require massive capital investment. So any short-term spurt in biofuel demand is most likely, due to economics, to kill rainforest.
Does anyone remember when Microsoft was the underdog that most people rooted for?
Um, no, because that never happened.
In the beginning, Microsoft was just the BASIC maker that kept attacking people for pirating its software. Nobody was rooting for it to do anything in particular.
Then it was IBM's business partner in operating systems, not its opponent. People were rooting for various companies against IBM, sure, but in all those battles, Microsoft was either on the IBM side or a supplier to both sides. It was hardly an underdog.
By the time Microsoft was firmly separated from IBM, IBM itself was in serious trouble and Microsoft's campaign of vaporware, FUD, and per-processor license agreements against DR-DOS were well known; tactics it soon turned, with great effect, on IBM over OS/2 2.0.
The day that google figures out how to evaluate site content
Natural language processing powerful enough for full content evaluation, fast enough to be useful for evaluating the entire Web, and unbiased and broad enough to be useful for a major fraction of the users of the Web . . .
. . . If we had that, what would humans need the information for? The program that can do that will be able to outthink any human decision-maker.
Actually, there's a waiting list for infants of any description. Forget race, there's demand for ones with severe disabilities, birth defects, whatever. The biggest problem with transracial infant adoption in America is not discrimination by potential adoptive parents. Instead, it's the opposition of the National Association of Black Social Workers, which issued a conemnation of transracial adoption in 1972. When Congress moved in 1994 to knock down state barriers to transracial adoption, the NABSW and NAACP were in the forefront of opposition.
Now, on the other hand, there's much more in the way of willing suppliers of sperm than suppliers of infants. Whether or not those looking for artificial insemination are naturally any picker than infant-adopters, the supply glut allows them to be pickier than those seeking infants, and so they are.
Are you saying that the expression "flammable" isn't used in the US?
No. He's making a joke and a reference to the Simpsons (Dr. Nick Riviera caused an explosion with an inflammable gas. He then said, "Inflammable means flammable? What a country!")
Can anyone clarify the logic behind this decision ?
Sure. Dell isn't really a manufacturer, it's a retailer. Wal-Mart doesn't research or develop, say, flashlights, except insofar as it tells its flashlight suppliers what it wants. Similarly, Dell sells other people's components, with the proviso that it sticks them together first. it doesn't need to develop a better processor, Intel's doing that R&D.
The kernel? Wonderful. Just compile, from the Darwin source, a kernel that doesn't include it. Run the rest of the OS on that kernel.
Or run the OS under an emulator, figure out what's making the TPM request, and develop an always-return-true patch from the machine code. Somewhat harder, yes, but there's an entire army of people out there who do this sort of thing.
Or, say, run the OS under a virtualizer (a Mac-on-Linux for x86, say), trap the TPM call, and return a lie in software.
Is it worthwhile for me to do it? No. But just one person has to do it, and then file-sharing programs will spread it. Those who want to run OS X on non-Apple hardware are going to be able to do it, because somebody's going to make it easy for them. And if it takes more than six months from commercial release, I'll be shocked.
The drivers will be written. People are going to want to put non-Apple peripherals in their c86 Macs. (Hell, I currently have a Microsoft-brand wireless-G card in my G3 Yosemete right now, so it isn't something new.) Writing those drivers (the ones the peripheral makers don't provide, at least) is non-trivial, but Darwin is a known quantity and there's lots of people writing drivers for Linux and FreeBSD already.
Alternatively, a version of Mac-on-Linux for x86 hardware would handle driver troubles fairly effectively, and require less work, but still require a crack.
It's always possible to lie about the hardware to the OS, through something like the PPC's Mac-on-Linux. Since we already have the source code for the core of the OS, ot's even more futile.
They weren't to know that NeXT would find a massive new audience as the new MacOS...
NeXT was purchased by Apple in 1996, with the public announcement that NeXT's OPENSTEP operating system would be the basis for the next-generation MacOS. The GNOME project was announced August, 1997. There were lots of reasons not to go with GNUStep, but that OpenStep was the API of the future MacOS was well-known.
In fact, it's prety clear that cross-platform development wasn't a major consideration in toolkit selection. When GNOME was announced, the OpenStep API was already available on Solaris and, as OPENSTEP Enterprise, for Windows NT 4.0.
Google could buy both Earthlink and United Online (NetZero/Juno/BlueLight) for the cash they have on-hand. Then they could use the billions from the second stock offering to buy WiMax gear to install in the existing modem-pool local offices, and supplement the existing backbone connections those offices are using with Google's dark fiber. Instant wireless semi-broadband ISP.
(And Google, with AdSense, could possibly make the old ad-supported-free-dialup ISP model of the United Online companies work, at least as a piggyback on a paid-subscription WiMax-and-fiber ISP network . . ..)
If they're selling binaries but attempting to charge specifically for provision of the source, it's one of those edge cases not specifically covered in the GPL's terms.
Actually, it is dealt with. If they're not bundling the source code with the binaries they distribute, they must:
"Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than [their] cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange" -- GPL 2.0, Section 3.
So they're perfectly allowed to charge separately for the source code, but only if they offer it to anyone interested at cost.
Bzzzt. Creation of a duplicate of a work, even in its entirety, does not automatically violate copyright. Among other things, making a complete copy of a work for the fair use purpose of time-shifting (see the Betamax case) is non-infringing.
No, mere creation of a full duplicate of a work is not necessarily a copyright violation, even in the absence of a statutory exception. To use the example in the article, if I wished to make a full duplicate of a television show with my VCR, it would be perfectly legal, since time-shifting itself is fair use even though it requires creation of a complete duplicate of the work. And it's still legal even if I were to copy many television broadcasts.
If providing a full-text search with summary page results is fair use, then the duplication on Google's hard drive is arguably fair use by necessity. Just like my complete duplication of a TV broadcast on a videotape is fair use for the permitted purpose of time-shifting. Now, it may be that the courts rule providing full-text search with summary page results is not Fair Use, but the law is certainly not clear on the issue; there are no directly on-point cases.
In any case, how exactly this "screw[s] over" authors and publishers is unclear. Authors and publishers do not and have never historically published in the expectation of fees for or a veto over methods for users to discover the subject-matter of a book (such as card catalogs, bibliographies, and book reviews). It is not an obvious natural consequence of their copyrights that they should suddenly be able to demand a revenue stream from or veto over a more sophisticated approach to providing users with a moderately enhanced version of the ability to discover the subject-matter of a work.
You know, if you're going to use a term like "corporatism", you should first learn what it actually means. Because you sure don't seem to be talking about rule by government-established councils consisting of representatives of businesses and labor unions.
It is absolutely legal in the United States to use another company's trademark in promotion of your products if your use does not promote confusion as to whether the other company made or authorized the product. Printing "Compatible with iPod® brand music players" on the package is legal, just like "Compare to TUMS E-X®" is legal on a store-brand antacid tablet bottle or "Works with [long list of cell phones]" is legal on a 2.5mm-plug hands-free headset.
You'd be wise to add a no-trademark-challenge and a not-manufactured-by-Apple fine print to the box, of course, since it constitutes additional (non-definitive) evidence you were not trying to promote confusion.
So, I guess it would be safer to plan a manned Mars mission to coincide with peak sunspot activity?
Peak sunspot activity means peak coronal mass ejection (solar flare) activity. A really large solar flare can inflict thousands of rems in a short period of time, while you'd be reducing cosmic ray exposure by tenths of a rem per week. Even smaller flares will influct tens or hundreds, and at any reasonable interplanetary speed, you'll get hit by several during a sunspot peak.
If you've got the Van Allen belts between you and the Sun, and are spending half your time shielded from flares by the mass of a planet anyway, yeah, you're better off at the solar maximum, because you're shielded enough from flares that the cosmic ray deflection rsults in a net reduction. But if you're going to some other body in the Solar System, going at the maximum is suicidal.
Actually, there is a rival theoretical framework -- MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics), an extended form of GR. Which said that for very low accelerations (less than the gravitational acceleration any body in the Solar System would experience), speed would be faster than in standard GR.
Slashdot Mirror
But I've had way more success getting the Task Manager to pop up on a machine with a runaway process than getting an xterm to pop up allowing me to type 'kill -9'.
Well, that's why you invoke a virtual console, not an xterm. Ctrl-Alt-F[1-6] from X, Alt-F[1-6] from a console.
From the Help:About box on Microsoft Internet Explorer:
Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc.
Got the domain before the policy was established, were grandfathered in.
Eh.
"Hinduism" was a term invented by Westerners for "the whole set of religious beliefs of the Indian people who aren't identifiably followers of a systemized religion". It is accordingly exceedingly difficult, on the margins, to systematically separate "Hinduism" from "Indian cultural practice".
By analogy, imagine Chinese Traditonal Religion had been given the label "Hanism" by Western scholars. Now, would ancestor reverence, a cultural tradition which is supported by Hanist religious arguments, be "Chinese ancestor reverence" or "Hanist ancestor reverence"? One could, for example, look to Chinese Christians to try to work it out; but some Chinese Christians engage in it as a cultural practice, while others reject it as idolatry. So are the Christians who revere their ancestors being Hanist-Christian syncretists, or are they merely being culturally-Chinese Christians?
Similarly, the caste system is rejected by some non-Hindus in India and accepted by other non-Hindus in India. So is it a Hindu practice or an Indian practice? Especially now that some self-declared Hindus reject the caste system?
So neither "Hindu caste system" not "Indian caste system" is very significantly more "correct" than the other. Both identify the system, and both have inaccuracies if taken entirely literally.
there aren't really any needs for new crops anywhere at all.
Current cropland and wastes, with the oils recovered at an impossible 100% efficiency, won't replace even 15% of current world petroleum usage; with the current annual growth in demand, that's a pittiance with even a short projection into the future. Any truly significant use of biodiesel will require some form of cultivation of currently uncultivated areas. Same is true for ethanol. And in both the biodiesel and ethanol cases, the uncultivated land that would be cheapest, easiest, and most productive to convert to biofuel production is currently rainforest.
There are other processes to make biodiesel, yes; but they are unproven commercially and would require massive capital investment. So any short-term spurt in biofuel demand is most likely, due to economics, to kill rainforest.
Does anyone remember when Microsoft was the underdog that most people rooted for?
Um, no, because that never happened.
In the beginning, Microsoft was just the BASIC maker that kept attacking people for pirating its software. Nobody was rooting for it to do anything in particular.
Then it was IBM's business partner in operating systems, not its opponent. People were rooting for various companies against IBM, sure, but in all those battles, Microsoft was either on the IBM side or a supplier to both sides. It was hardly an underdog.
By the time Microsoft was firmly separated from IBM, IBM itself was in serious trouble and Microsoft's campaign of vaporware, FUD, and per-processor license agreements against DR-DOS were well known; tactics it soon turned, with great effect, on IBM over OS/2 2.0.
The day that google figures out how to evaluate site content
Natural language processing powerful enough for full content evaluation, fast enough to be useful for evaluating the entire Web, and unbiased and broad enough to be useful for a major fraction of the users of the Web . . .
. . . If we had that, what would humans need the information for? The program that can do that will be able to outthink any human decision-maker.
Actually, there's a waiting list for infants of any description. Forget race, there's demand for ones with severe disabilities, birth defects, whatever. The biggest problem with transracial infant adoption in America is not discrimination by potential adoptive parents. Instead, it's the opposition of the National Association of Black Social Workers, which issued a conemnation of transracial adoption in 1972. When Congress moved in 1994 to knock down state barriers to transracial adoption, the NABSW and NAACP were in the forefront of opposition.
Now, on the other hand, there's much more in the way of willing suppliers of sperm than suppliers of infants. Whether or not those looking for artificial insemination are naturally any picker than infant-adopters, the supply glut allows them to be pickier than those seeking infants, and so they are.
Are you saying that the expression "flammable" isn't used in the US?
No. He's making a joke and a reference to the Simpsons (Dr. Nick Riviera caused an explosion with an inflammable gas. He then said, "Inflammable means flammable? What a country!")
Can anyone clarify the logic behind this decision ?
Sure. Dell isn't really a manufacturer, it's a retailer. Wal-Mart doesn't research or develop, say, flashlights, except insofar as it tells its flashlight suppliers what it wants. Similarly, Dell sells other people's components, with the proviso that it sticks them together first. it doesn't need to develop a better processor, Intel's doing that R&D.
The kernel? Wonderful. Just compile, from the Darwin source, a kernel that doesn't include it. Run the rest of the OS on that kernel.
Or run the OS under an emulator, figure out what's making the TPM request, and develop an always-return-true patch from the machine code. Somewhat harder, yes, but there's an entire army of people out there who do this sort of thing.
Or, say, run the OS under a virtualizer (a Mac-on-Linux for x86, say), trap the TPM call, and return a lie in software.
Is it worthwhile for me to do it? No. But just one person has to do it, and then file-sharing programs will spread it. Those who want to run OS X on non-Apple hardware are going to be able to do it, because somebody's going to make it easy for them. And if it takes more than six months from commercial release, I'll be shocked.
The drivers will be written. People are going to want to put non-Apple peripherals in their c86 Macs. (Hell, I currently have a Microsoft-brand wireless-G card in my G3 Yosemete right now, so it isn't something new.) Writing those drivers (the ones the peripheral makers don't provide, at least) is non-trivial, but Darwin is a known quantity and there's lots of people writing drivers for Linux and FreeBSD already.
Alternatively, a version of Mac-on-Linux for x86 hardware would handle driver troubles fairly effectively, and require less work, but still require a crack.
It's always possible to lie about the hardware to the OS, through something like the PPC's Mac-on-Linux. Since we already have the source code for the core of the OS, ot's even more futile.
They weren't to know that NeXT would find a massive new audience as the new MacOS ...
NeXT was purchased by Apple in 1996, with the public announcement that NeXT's OPENSTEP operating system would be the basis for the next-generation MacOS. The GNOME project was announced August, 1997. There were lots of reasons not to go with GNUStep, but that OpenStep was the API of the future MacOS was well-known.
In fact, it's prety clear that cross-platform development wasn't a major consideration in toolkit selection. When GNOME was announced, the OpenStep API was already available on Solaris and, as OPENSTEP Enterprise, for Windows NT 4.0.
B.T.W - No one other than white males uses the term 'good old days'.
Really? So both of my grandmothers were actually men?
Google could buy both Earthlink and United Online (NetZero/Juno/BlueLight) for the cash they have on-hand. Then they could use the billions from the second stock offering to buy WiMax gear to install in the existing modem-pool local offices, and supplement the existing backbone connections those offices are using with Google's dark fiber. Instant wireless semi-broadband ISP.
.)
(And Google, with AdSense, could possibly make the old ad-supported-free-dialup ISP model of the United Online companies work, at least as a piggyback on a paid-subscription WiMax-and-fiber ISP network . . .
If they're selling binaries but attempting to charge specifically for provision of the source, it's one of those edge cases not specifically covered in the GPL's terms.
Actually, it is dealt with. If they're not bundling the source code with the binaries they distribute, they must:
"Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than [their] cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange" -- GPL 2.0, Section 3.
So they're perfectly allowed to charge separately for the source code, but only if they offer it to anyone interested at cost.
Bzzzt. Creation of a duplicate of a work, even in its entirety, does not automatically violate copyright. Among other things, making a complete copy of a work for the fair use purpose of time-shifting (see the Betamax case) is non-infringing.
No, mere creation of a full duplicate of a work is not necessarily a copyright violation, even in the absence of a statutory exception. To use the example in the article, if I wished to make a full duplicate of a television show with my VCR, it would be perfectly legal, since time-shifting itself is fair use even though it requires creation of a complete duplicate of the work. And it's still legal even if I were to copy many television broadcasts.
If providing a full-text search with summary page results is fair use, then the duplication on Google's hard drive is arguably fair use by necessity. Just like my complete duplication of a TV broadcast on a videotape is fair use for the permitted purpose of time-shifting. Now, it may be that the courts rule providing full-text search with summary page results is not Fair Use, but the law is certainly not clear on the issue; there are no directly on-point cases.
In any case, how exactly this "screw[s] over" authors and publishers is unclear. Authors and publishers do not and have never historically published in the expectation of fees for or a veto over methods for users to discover the subject-matter of a book (such as card catalogs, bibliographies, and book reviews). It is not an obvious natural consequence of their copyrights that they should suddenly be able to demand a revenue stream from or veto over a more sophisticated approach to providing users with a moderately enhanced version of the ability to discover the subject-matter of a work.
You know, if you're going to use a term like "corporatism", you should first learn what it actually means. Because you sure don't seem to be talking about rule by government-established councils consisting of representatives of businesses and labor unions.
Register: Wikipedia Inaccurate, Badly-Written
Pots, kettles war over who's the blackest
[Story body here]
It is absolutely legal in the United States to use another company's trademark in promotion of your products if your use does not promote confusion as to whether the other company made or authorized the product. Printing "Compatible with iPod® brand music players" on the package is legal, just like "Compare to TUMS E-X®" is legal on a store-brand antacid tablet bottle or "Works with [long list of cell phones]" is legal on a 2.5mm-plug hands-free headset.
You'd be wise to add a no-trademark-challenge and a not-manufactured-by-Apple fine print to the box, of course, since it constitutes additional (non-definitive) evidence you were not trying to promote confusion.
So, I guess it would be safer to plan a manned Mars mission to coincide with peak sunspot activity?
Peak sunspot activity means peak coronal mass ejection (solar flare) activity. A really large solar flare can inflict thousands of rems in a short period of time, while you'd be reducing cosmic ray exposure by tenths of a rem per week. Even smaller flares will influct tens or hundreds, and at any reasonable interplanetary speed, you'll get hit by several during a sunspot peak.
If you've got the Van Allen belts between you and the Sun, and are spending half your time shielded from flares by the mass of a planet anyway, yeah, you're better off at the solar maximum, because you're shielded enough from flares that the cosmic ray deflection rsults in a net reduction. But if you're going to some other body in the Solar System, going at the maximum is suicidal.
Modified newtonian dynamics (MOND) is an effort to revise gravity (a failed one, it looks to me).
It'll be interesting to see if TeVeS can recover from this paper.
Actually, there is a rival theoretical framework -- MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics), an extended form of GR. Which said that for very low accelerations (less than the gravitational acceleration any body in the Solar System would experience), speed would be faster than in standard GR.