Seeing as how all these flash apps rain down upon us from the mysterious heavens, and the processes that create them are far beyond our understanding, not much.
To be fair, any discussion where RMS is mentioned would have to be at least tangetially about personal hygiene or delusions of Godhood, you would think.
You know, I just spent the better part of twenty minutes trying to get this installed, and it still doesn't work.
I found sources.list, I pasted the suggested lines into it, adapted for my Ubuntu version (which I had to guess from the other entries in the file, because everything refers to the code names which are not displayed anywhere), and tried installing through apt-get.
Which didn't work.
So I read more, and notice I have to go through ANOTHER cryptic procedure to add a public key for the repository, and I click through all the configuration tabs and buttons, and all the cryptic links on the webpage, and manage to add it successfully.
And it still doesn't work.
And now I really have no idea how to proceed. But hey, I'm sure that's just my own fault.
After all, I was the one who installed this OS in the first place.
You are entirely missing the point of the design: It is designed so that you can stuff it in a pocket and forget about it. The controls on the cord are far easier to reach than digging out the player. That is the whole point.
Most other MP3 players are also a magnitude of order bigger than the new Shuffle. That was kind of the point here, the thing is too small to put any controls on.
It is not in "beta", it is production quality. The fact that it is 0.5 indicates that it is not complete and perfect yet.
See, this is the reason why you should use version numbers like everyone else. Then you do not have to keep explaining over and over and over again that no, it's not beta even though the version number looks just like a beta version number.
"1.0" doesn't mean "complete and perfect". It merely means "first public release". ffmpeg passed that point long, long ago, and should have been named "1.0" then.
You can discard theories that don't fit hypotheses, but discarding observations because they don't fit theories is the exact opposite of science.
You have quite obviously never done any science. An "observation" isn't some kind of absolute truth. An observation is a set of data, with error margins and uncertainties. I can't do a measurement and get the result "gravity waves exist!".
What I can do is do a measurement, and then use a theory to predict what the measurement result should have been, had it been perfect. Then I compare the actual and predicted result, and if they agree, within the error limits of the measurement, I can say that I have an indication that my theory might be correct. If they do not agree, that is an indication that my model is not correct.
However, it might be that my estimations of the error are incorrect, in either case. Or I may have misunderstood the theory I was testing and designed the experiment wrong. Or I might have made an error in my calculations. And so on.
This is why you need a good theory to back up an experiment, or it is useless. A million things can go wrong, and several of them did, in this case - and we can't even tell which exact ones.
By providing any Contest Assets for entrant's use Sponsor is granting entrants a limited, non-exclusive, non-commercial license to use the Contest Assets solely in connection with, and as a part of, the Contest. Entrants shall otherwise have no right, title or interest in or to any Contest Assets, and any use of the Contest Assets (including use of the entrant's Entry that contains Contest Assets) other than as permitted by these Official Rules may constitute copyright and/or trademark infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
Seeing as how all these flash apps rain down upon us from the mysterious heavens, and the processes that create them are far beyond our understanding, not much.
To be fair, any discussion where RMS is mentioned would have to be at least tangetially about personal hygiene or delusions of Godhood, you would think.
That only works in ring 0, that is, if you are already root. Thus, it can only make a bad exploit even worse, it won't help you get out of a sandbox.
That, my friend, is the 80's talking. We're way past that stage.
There are plenty of people stuck in the eighties still. Just look at the popularity of emacs and vi around these parts.
Perl 5 isn't really bytecode at all. It basically just walks the parse tree directly.
Yeah, no, that's not actually true.
http://www.xav.com/perl/lib/B/Bytecode.html
You know, I just spent the better part of twenty minutes trying to get this installed, and it still doesn't work.
I found sources.list, I pasted the suggested lines into it, adapted for my Ubuntu version (which I had to guess from the other entries in the file, because everything refers to the code names which are not displayed anywhere), and tried installing through apt-get.
Which didn't work.
So I read more, and notice I have to go through ANOTHER cryptic procedure to add a public key for the repository, and I click through all the configuration tabs and buttons, and all the cryptic links on the webpage, and manage to add it successfully.
And it still doesn't work.
And now I really have no idea how to proceed. But hey, I'm sure that's just my own fault.
After all, I was the one who installed this OS in the first place.
They lie about their contributions to the Free Software community
And how exactly do they lie about that? Do they lie about developing WebKit? LLVM? What?
Not you, because you are too fucking cool.
You know, no phone I've ever owned has had cut-and-paste.
Are you equally upset about all those?
You are entirely missing the point of the design: It is designed so that you can stuff it in a pocket and forget about it. The controls on the cord are far easier to reach than digging out the player. That is the whole point.
Yes, I do.
Most other MP3 players are also a magnitude of order bigger than the new Shuffle. That was kind of the point here, the thing is too small to put any controls on.
Because of its altitude it would be safe from surface-to-air missiles and most aircraft
I know! This is totally going to solve the problem of the utter lack of glass spheres and infinite checkerboards in today's games!
No, it's like saying that a Ferrari is a car. Most people do not see a problem with this.
It is not in "beta", it is production quality. The fact that it is 0.5 indicates that it is not complete and perfect yet.
See, this is the reason why you should use version numbers like everyone else. Then you do not have to keep explaining over and over and over again that no, it's not beta even though the version number looks just like a beta version number.
"1.0" doesn't mean "complete and perfect". It merely means "first public release". ffmpeg passed that point long, long ago, and should have been named "1.0" then.
And that's where you stopped reading?
Now I'm not familiar with Boxee or with Hulu's RSS feed
So... you have no idea what you're talking about, but you won't let that stop you?
I'm pretty sure this article is about how they are having the engineers solve this "engineer's problem". Yes?
You can discard theories that don't fit hypotheses, but discarding observations because they don't fit theories is the exact opposite of science.
You have quite obviously never done any science. An "observation" isn't some kind of absolute truth. An observation is a set of data, with error margins and uncertainties. I can't do a measurement and get the result "gravity waves exist!".
What I can do is do a measurement, and then use a theory to predict what the measurement result should have been, had it been perfect. Then I compare the actual and predicted result, and if they agree, within the error limits of the measurement, I can say that I have an indication that my theory might be correct. If they do not agree, that is an indication that my model is not correct.
However, it might be that my estimations of the error are incorrect, in either case. Or I may have misunderstood the theory I was testing and designed the experiment wrong. Or I might have made an error in my calculations. And so on.
This is why you need a good theory to back up an experiment, or it is useless. A million things can go wrong, and several of them did, in this case - and we can't even tell which exact ones.
By providing any Contest Assets for entrant's use Sponsor is granting entrants a limited, non-exclusive, non-commercial license to use the Contest Assets solely in connection with, and as a part of, the Contest. Entrants shall otherwise have no right, title or interest in or to any Contest Assets, and any use of the Contest Assets (including use of the entrant's Entry that contains Contest Assets) other than as permitted by these Official Rules may constitute copyright and/or trademark infringement.
What exactly is the problem with this?
No, that is exactly how science is supposed to work.
MS already has .NET.
but since all the things that matter to you will be running in the sandbox
They won't be. That would be silly.
Are you saying NaCl is badly programmed, then?