Well, if you always do a "mass upgrade" like that then it may well be easier for you to get the mac mini. But I'd have thought that for most people, spending $100 each year for 5 years is a lot easier than spending $500 once every 5 years. On year 4, the person who did the incremental upgrade will have a much better PC. And what if there's only a few things that need upgrading? My PC was far from top-of-the-range when I got it about 3 years ago. The processor is still enough to play Doom 3. The 8MB 2D-only graphics card certainly isn't. I'm not a hardcore gamer by any stretch, but if I hadn't been able to separately upgrade my graphics card I'd have spent at least 5x as much as I have on my PC. Or, more likely, not have been able to play games I wanted to. Now granted with apple's reputation they're probably going to make the components more balanced, it won't be as top-heavy as what you'd get from Dell (3GHz processor + 64mb RAM anyone?), but still, everyone's needs are different and I would be willing to bet that for what *you* use it for, you will find there is at least one major bottleneck on your mac mini where upgrading that one component will give you a 20%+ performance increase.
how wrong these laws really are. If this law is preventing the library fulfilling its legal obligations, perhaps this shows it was a badly thought-out law?
Communication between different programs *is* what this is all about. It's about my editor communicating with your editor. It's not meant to be edited directly.
And this was not done before in LISP. LISP lets you define your own language to a certain extent, but you're still constrained to LISP brackety syntax. This is about being able to edit someone else's programs with any syntax you like. And I think it would really make programming a lot easier.
OK, but what if you'd never seen a JPEG before? It doesn't matter if the standard's open, if someone just chucked a raw jpeg file at you, you would have no clue what to do with it. Furthermore, what happens in 20 years when everyone is using some other format, and jpeg has faded into complete obscurity, and none of the jpeg decoders will compile with current compilers? The point is not that it's open, but that it's self-documenting - you do not need anything else to be able to understand it, if someone throws an.XML file at you you can read it, understand it, parse it and modify it, without needing anything else.
No, this makes sense. It doesn't have to be XML, but the whole point is to make it easy to parse in any language. What else would you suggest? You're trying to make a way to represent a programming language that it is as easy as possible to write scripts and programs to modify. Go on.
That third one is where this makes the difference. Sure, the compiler can parse it, but that doesn't make it easy to parse. Crucially, there's no easy way for me to parse it in a new program. If it's converted to XML, I can write a five line script in just about any modern programming language to, say, change all floating point constants to 1.5, something which is a nightmare to do for C code at the moment.
No, if it is de-compileable then that is a huge advantage. I'd love to be able to get a program and edit its source in whatever language I choose. As someone else said, if it's really idiomatic perl it won't work, but most straightforward programs can be done in every language. If I get a Java program and can edit it in Python, that's much more enjoyable for me. If I get a C program and can edit it with the Python code structure, all the code the same but indentation showing grouping and no semicolons, that's still a lot more fun for me. This could mean that everyone can write their own programming language, suited to what they like doing, and use it on every program they work on.
Enterprise was actually getting pretty good - better than some seasons of the other series in fact. I know I kept watching it. Of course it had the prequel-with-better-looking-technology-than-the-se quel problem and a few difficulties fitting in with accepted ST history,but when there's so much of it, it't pretty impossible to be consistent with everything. I will certainly be joining this campaign.
I'm not so sure about the death of movies. CGI is getting better all the time. At the moment you need a big renderfarm to do it, but an free movie "commons" which all ran a distributed client to render, or just a few decades (if that) of moore's law would see to that. Sure, blender will need to get a lot better to match Pixar's efforts - but it will happen, pretty much inevitably. Once CGI is cheap and indistinguishable from live action, everyone will be able to make movies - and they will, for the same reason as music, love of the art.
In the UK at least you have to hand over your key if there's a warrant for it. If not you get a 5 year jail term. If you tell anyone you have been told to hand it over, that's another 5 year jail term. Our civil liberties people managed to get it amended at the last minute so that they have to prove you have access to the key - but they already can prove you were uploading *something* to them, which shows you must be able to decrypt that drive.
It's not passing through, it's being uploaded to them. SSH doesn't mean you can't see whose IP it is on the other end of your connection. The solution is a working freenetalike, where any packet you send could just as easily be from you or common-carrier-exempt proxying for someone else. But that has a cost in bandwidth, and so far hasn't caught on. (That and the fact that such a system has no way to reward sharing and freenet lacks a proper search function)
But it still leaves the problem of having to have tons of little folders in your PATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH etc. (I imagine OSX works a bit differently for these, but enough linux users won't want to change that changing to whatever method OSX uses is unlikely). You need to be able to have novice users see a "bundle" that is actually one file in/usr/bin, a few in/usr/lib, some in/usr/doc and/usr/man, and a folder in/usr/share. And you need to have experts able to see it as it really is. It could easily become a big mess, but if it's done properly, it would be great.
SDL could do that, and it's the best we have at the moment. All we really need is to get lots of programmers adding the features game developers want to SDL. That's all.
I don't mind that, as I'm not emailing anything that really matters. But I still don't want it read. And if I attract attention from TLAs, I'm just distracting them from others. Which is good.
Not on a regular basis, but I've been pretty glad I could reflash my bios when I've upgraded to a bigger hard drive and not had it all recognised. Maybe a bios protection jumper that you had to remove before being able to reflash would be a good idea though.
I'm pretty sure it's the chernobyl virus, and a very nasty fellow it was. Whilst it technically doesn't "damage" anything, when the bios is soldered on it can cost more to reflash it than to get a new motherboard. It's still knocking around, and still works, but widespread antivirus and the lack of floppy-trading since the rise of the internet have made it pretty uncommon.
Slashdot Mirror
Square, not squared. The area would be 160^2 mm.
Well, if you always do a "mass upgrade" like that then it may well be easier for you to get the mac mini. But I'd have thought that for most people, spending $100 each year for 5 years is a lot easier than spending $500 once every 5 years. On year 4, the person who did the incremental upgrade will have a much better PC. And what if there's only a few things that need upgrading? My PC was far from top-of-the-range when I got it about 3 years ago. The processor is still enough to play Doom 3. The 8MB 2D-only graphics card certainly isn't. I'm not a hardcore gamer by any stretch, but if I hadn't been able to separately upgrade my graphics card I'd have spent at least 5x as much as I have on my PC. Or, more likely, not have been able to play games I wanted to. Now granted with apple's reputation they're probably going to make the components more balanced, it won't be as top-heavy as what you'd get from Dell (3GHz processor + 64mb RAM anyone?), but still, everyone's needs are different and I would be willing to bet that for what *you* use it for, you will find there is at least one major bottleneck on your mac mini where upgrading that one component will give you a 20%+ performance increase.
how wrong these laws really are. If this law is preventing the library fulfilling its legal obligations, perhaps this shows it was a badly thought-out law?
The Falcons - and I'm pretty sure that's both of them - have been man-rated from the ground up.
Hell yeah. If you've got big enough capacitors or whatever you're planning to use, I'm there.
And this was not done before in LISP. LISP lets you define your own language to a certain extent, but you're still constrained to LISP brackety syntax. This is about being able to edit someone else's programs with any syntax you like. And I think it would really make programming a lot easier.
OK, but what if you'd never seen a JPEG before? It doesn't matter if the standard's open, if someone just chucked a raw jpeg file at you, you would have no clue what to do with it. Furthermore, what happens in 20 years when everyone is using some other format, and jpeg has faded into complete obscurity, and none of the jpeg decoders will compile with current compilers? The point is not that it's open, but that it's self-documenting - you do not need anything else to be able to understand it, if someone throws an .XML file at you you can read it, understand it, parse it and modify it, without needing anything else.
No, this makes sense. It doesn't have to be XML, but the whole point is to make it easy to parse in any language. What else would you suggest? You're trying to make a way to represent a programming language that it is as easy as possible to write scripts and programs to modify. Go on.
That third one is where this makes the difference. Sure, the compiler can parse it, but that doesn't make it easy to parse. Crucially, there's no easy way for me to parse it in a new program. If it's converted to XML, I can write a five line script in just about any modern programming language to, say, change all floating point constants to 1.5, something which is a nightmare to do for C code at the moment.
No, if it is de-compileable then that is a huge advantage. I'd love to be able to get a program and edit its source in whatever language I choose. As someone else said, if it's really idiomatic perl it won't work, but most straightforward programs can be done in every language. If I get a Java program and can edit it in Python, that's much more enjoyable for me. If I get a C program and can edit it with the Python code structure, all the code the same but indentation showing grouping and no semicolons, that's still a lot more fun for me. This could mean that everyone can write their own programming language, suited to what they like doing, and use it on every program they work on.
Enterprise was actually getting pretty good - better than some seasons of the other series in fact. I know I kept watching it. Of course it had the prequel-with-better-looking-technology-than-the-se quel problem and a few difficulties fitting in with accepted ST history ,but when there's so much of it, it't pretty impossible to be consistent with everything. I will certainly be joining this campaign.
If OSDL are rewriting it, it shows they know there's a big problem with it.
Why can't they just uncheck the option? Those who care about kernel bloat are surely compiling custom kernels anyway
It will defeat the automatic system - and also anyone else trying to download the film.
I'm not so sure about the death of movies. CGI is getting better all the time. At the moment you need a big renderfarm to do it, but an free movie "commons" which all ran a distributed client to render, or just a few decades (if that) of moore's law would see to that. Sure, blender will need to get a lot better to match Pixar's efforts - but it will happen, pretty much inevitably. Once CGI is cheap and indistinguishable from live action, everyone will be able to make movies - and they will, for the same reason as music, love of the art.
In the UK at least you have to hand over your key if there's a warrant for it. If not you get a 5 year jail term. If you tell anyone you have been told to hand it over, that's another 5 year jail term. Our civil liberties people managed to get it amended at the last minute so that they have to prove you have access to the key - but they already can prove you were uploading *something* to them, which shows you must be able to decrypt that drive.
It's not passing through, it's being uploaded to them. SSH doesn't mean you can't see whose IP it is on the other end of your connection. The solution is a working freenetalike, where any packet you send could just as easily be from you or common-carrier-exempt proxying for someone else. But that has a cost in bandwidth, and so far hasn't caught on. (That and the fact that such a system has no way to reward sharing and freenet lacks a proper search function)
But it still leaves the problem of having to have tons of little folders in your PATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH etc. (I imagine OSX works a bit differently for these, but enough linux users won't want to change that changing to whatever method OSX uses is unlikely). You need to be able to have novice users see a "bundle" that is actually one file in /usr/bin, a few in /usr/lib, some in /usr/doc and /usr/man, and a folder in /usr/share. And you need to have experts able to see it as it really is. It could easily become a big mess, but if it's done properly, it would be great.
Why? Either way he's doing something he wants to. If he enjoys this, best of luck to him.
SDL could do that, and it's the best we have at the moment. All we really need is to get lots of programmers adding the features game developers want to SDL. That's all.
I don't mind that, as I'm not emailing anything that really matters. But I still don't want it read. And if I attract attention from TLAs, I'm just distracting them from others. Which is good.
Not on a regular basis, but I've been pretty glad I could reflash my bios when I've upgraded to a bigger hard drive and not had it all recognised. Maybe a bios protection jumper that you had to remove before being able to reflash would be a good idea though.
KDE is mostly about functionality, really. Sure it looks good, but it's also easier to use than any other DE I've seen, at least for newbies.
I'm pretty sure it's the chernobyl virus, and a very nasty fellow it was. Whilst it technically doesn't "damage" anything, when the bios is soldered on it can cost more to reflash it than to get a new motherboard. It's still knocking around, and still works, but widespread antivirus and the lack of floppy-trading since the rise of the internet have made it pretty uncommon.
Because KDE is primarily about functionality