Do you say this based on the assumption that the numbers stolen were those of employees? They were not necessarily.
For instance, I got a letter that my number was stolen, because I (apparently) was on a list of people who hadn't cashed their tax return check by some date or another. I don't work for the Ohio state government, though.
The article says that 770,000 of the numbers were from tax payers, and 64,000 were from state employees.
Yes, yes. Quite right. Hardly anybody uses gcc, or glibc, or gdb, or emacs, or bash, or...
Damn those FSF nuts for never writing any software that's good enough for use. After all, everyone knows that all you need is a bare kernel to get things done.
"Window Actions" tab:
Left button: Set to "Activate & Pass Click" instead of "Activate, Raise & Pass Click"
Solved.
Re:HFS++ looking pretty sharp now eh?
on
WinFS Gets the Axe
·
· Score: 1
then why did WinFS crater?
Who knows? MS fucked up somehow. Note that Google has offered desktop searching on Windows for a while now, yet it doesn't require you to format your hard drive and store all your data on some custom Google filesystem.
Why did reiserFS rewrite resider4, and why did anyone bother ot create ZFS.
Certainly not because it's impossible to do something like Spotlight on other Linux filesystems. You may have heard of Beagle. It does what Spotlight does, and it works on any of the standard Linux filesystems (as far as I'm aware), as long as you have inotify enabled in the kernel. The interesting things that reiser4 and zfs do aren't specifically related to searching (although some may be able to be used for such a purpose).
Apparently it's not so simple just to tack things on unless the deisgn allowed it.
Apparently, you don't know what you're talking about.
Well, that sort of compiler is sort of the holy grail of pure functional languages. The idea goes something like this:
Forget your C/C++/Java/whatever. Side effects and multiple assignment are bad. Program in a pure functional language, such that all functions are referentially transparent---that is, f(x1,x2,...) always returns the same value given the same x1, x2,..., and has no side effects (print statements, assignment to mutable state, etc.).
Now, since most of your code is made up of referentially transparent functions, the compiler can automatically split independent pieces of code up, and perform them in parallel without fear that a call to b(x) somehow effects the results of c(y).
When you absolutely need side effects (for IO, for example), you use something (uniqueness types, monads; I'm guessing) that explicitly orders the code and in this case, would presumably prevent the compiler from parallelizing it.
Compilers aren't there yet. The things I'm (vaguely) familiar with require specific annotation of potentially parallel paths. Try Occam, for instance. Another example I've read only slightly more about is parallel Haskell, which includes similar annotation primitives (par and seq). However, just because you annotate something as parallel doesn't mean it will be performed in parallel. The compiler/runtime/I'm-not-sure-which decides what to run in parallel from among the massive potential of parallelism in such a program.
If you're asking how it's possible in Java: it isn't. But then, Java already sucks when it comes to concurrency compared to systems designed for it like, say, Erlang (which, incidentally, is VM interpreted, but still blows the pants off most conventional C/whatever programs within its application domain (massively concurrent/fault-tolerant systems), lending some credence to the point of this article, not that the same things necessarily couldn't be done with native code).
Equal height columns are easy: height: 100%;. Too bad IE can't get this right unless you declare the height of the parent element. Hate the implementation, not the specification.
Out of curiosity: what browser does that work on? I fooled with it, and I couldn't get it to work without declaring the height of the body explicitly on either konqueror or firefox. I may not be doing it correctly either, I suppose. Do you have an example, perchance?
If the Acid2 page is scrolled, the scalp will stay fixed in place, becoming unstuck from the rest of the face, which will scroll.
Changing the size of the window has similar effects. Konqueror is exhibiting correct behavior; the test wasn't designed to keep the face constant after scrolling or forcing the browser to adjust the positioning by resizing the window. It's just supposed to display correctly after you click on the link that jumps you down to the face.
From what I've read... People have made observations (measuring red shifts of stars at various distances, or something like that) that indicate that the universe's expansion has been accelerating for some billions of years now, rather than slowing, which would be what you'd expect if it were just gravity from normal matter acting on things. If I remember correctly, including a cosmological constant that explains said acceleration also happens to clear up questions related to the flatness of space (at least, I think that's right; it's been a bit since I read about it), leading them to think they're on the right track.
So, this was not exactly pulled out of thin air, unless I've been lied to.
I don't recall saying that 'blatantly' doesn't work in that sentence. I am well aware of what it means, and that it would be acceptable word choice.
However, 'patently' is also a fine word to use there, so it is an error to say that the original post was incorrect to use it. The anonymous one seemed to take special pleasure in explaining just how silly he thought the word to be, and how it related to patents in the legal system. Thus, I thought it would be appropriate to relish my own act of pointing out just how silly (patently absurd, you might say) it was to 'correct' someone for proper word use. So I did.
The literaly meaning of patently untrue could be that you'd just discovered some method for making it untrue that was so difficult and complicated that you just patented it.
He probably meant "patently untrue," as in "readily visible or intelligible; obvious." Perhaps you should check a dictionary before nitpicking someone who has a larger vocabulary than you do.
I still run dual Celeries and dual Pentium II Xeons at my office
I have a Pentium III machine here with 512MB of RAM. GNOME runs like absolute shit. It's terrible to the point of being painful to use - to the point that I'm probably going to try something like RatPoison.
You don't expect a modern computer (even if it's being used for education in the 3rd world) - to not use a GUI, do you?
He said that KDE runs fine on the machines he mentioned. Did you actually read his post? What are you saying? Your Pentium 3 with 512MB of RAM is slower than the dual Pentium 2 he's using?
I think his claim is that you and other people, apparently, don't know how to install just-the-essentials so that even old computers will perform fine using even the latest software.
Or, perhaps Gnome sucks, and you should try using KDE, which apparently works fine for him.
Of course, it's duel of the anecdotes, as it usually is here, but who's really going to trust an anonymous coward who begins his post by incorrectly accusing someone of poor diction, and follows that up by ignoring the remainder of the post, except for one line, which he uses as a basis for accusing his opponent of espousing an absurd, straw man position?
How can someone donating to a sperm bank ever give his offspring a second thought? He never knows if or when or how many kids will be the result of that donation. At most he could perhaps claim to have been thinking about the potential parents and their plight of not being able to have children.
These kids aren't adopted. These people aren't selling babies for beer money. They're selling people the opportunity to have 'their own' children, merely with someone else's genetic material. These kids weren't abandoned by some 'original' parents. Their parents are the people who went to the sperm bank, and got pregnant, and so on, specifically because they wanted a child. These children are living with their real parents. The fact that the semen came from some other guy's penis, whatever the motivation, seems like an infinitesimal part of the equation, unless you're worried about genetic diseases or something.
What exactly is wrong with donating to a sperm bank? It allows people to have kids that might otherwise not be able to.
And what exactly is wrong with using the money for beer? Beer is good.
And how exactly could the child become emotionally scarred? By finding out at least one of his genetic parents is not part of his family? Why exactly does that matter? He has (presumably) two parents who love him and wanted him enough to go to extraordinary measures to have him. Isn't that good enough?
And if he didn't know that he was a sperm bank baby, and it does scar him, isn't it the fault of his parents that actually take care of him, for not telling him before he found it out on the internet?
Could you please expound on what, exactly, is wrong with this situation in your view? I can't figure it out beyond the possibility that you want to whine about 'them damn college students!'
The main person I knew who supported it was Knuth and pals, since I recalled reading it in Concrete Mathematics (and it's also in The Art of Computer Programming somewhere, it seems). That book, although it does go in quite a few theoretical directions, is ultimately focused around using mathematics to solve 'real' problems (for some definition of real). Knuth being a computer scientist, I suppose it's no surprise that he'd go the practical angle.
I think the other binomial theorem argument in there is dubious, as well. You could easily define the binomial theorem not to work when x, y or x + y are 0, I suppose. I don't know how much of a difference that would really make.
Ultimately mathematics is for practical use, I think (although I do enjoy it for purely masturbational purposes), so defining 0^0 as to satisfy the most important cases does make some sense to me.
But, I think the strongest arguments against it are the things you can derive from it. For instance, 0^0 = 1 implies 0/0 = 1, from which (I think) you can derive that x/0 = 1 for any x. But then, from that you can derive x/0 = y for any x and y, which doesn't make any sense, or even weirder stuff like y = 1 for all y. So, you have to say something like 0^0 = 1 but you're not allowed to derive all the bad stuff from it, which is rather inconsistent, I agree.
There were/are mathematicians who argue that 0^0 is 1, and those that argue that it's undefined.
Re:keeping pc gaming alive
on
Ask Sid Meier
·
· Score: 1
How do you turn 180 degrees with that controller?
The revolution controller will probably provide a more realistic experience for FPS. You'll aim your gun by pointing, and the analog stick will control movement, which mimics aiming your gun quickly but separately from the slow action of walking and turning around on your feet.
However, a keyboard and mouse player will still probably beat you, depending on the game, because they are still faster. If they hear gunfire behind them, they can almost instantly be facing the opposite direction, while it takes you a little while.
Perhaps I'm not imaginative enough, though. Can you come up with a method of using the Revolution controller that allows snap turning that's as quick and precise as a mouse? I cannot.
Not that I'm down on the controller. I think it's an interesting design, and am eager to see where it goes.
Perhaps it might be wise to, for example, wait and try the controller first. That way, you can base your opinion off of your experiences and actual data, rather than making assumptions based on pictures and a hype video with actors who clearly aren't actually playing games.
Your point is obvious. Nobody wants innovation for the sake of innovation if the result is crap. However, assuming that it's crap just because it's different is equally stupid, and people do it frequently. I imagine that the original poster was merely expressing a hope that people will be willing enough to accept a positive change, if that is in fact what this is, rather than simply rejecting it as too different.
Although they don't come in 30" sizes, the Dell wide-screen monitors are also something to consider. They come in 20" and 24" models.
I don't think I've seen a negative report of one, and I must say, my 24" is quite luxurious. In fact, I recall seeing a review of the 24" Dell versus a 23" Apple display, and the reviewer preferred the Dell (of course, I can't speak for everyone on that).
The big one is kind of expensive, and it doesn't get quite as big as the Apple models do, but they're quite nice. I believe the model numbers are 2005fpw, and 2405fpw.
Since when are all the different Linux distributions perceived as good? Perhaps you've missed the countless Score:5 Insightful posts here on Slashdot, and every lauded Linux Is Not Ready For The Desktop article which bitches about how many distributions there are.
I, for one, don't care how many Linux distributions there are, nor do I care how many versions of Windows there are. Of course, I think the Windows situation is a little harrier, since each has slightly different restrictions and functionality (am I allowed to run more than 3 programs on this one? Is my networking restricted on that one? etc.), whereas all the Linux distributions are essentially different brands of the same thing, like toothpaste or something (notice that nobody complains about how confusing it is for consumers to choose between Crest, Colgate and Aquafresh, or the hundreds of brands of shampoos and body soaps and lotions out there). But I don't think that distinction is going to make any practical difference.
So, what you're missing is that it's "insightful" around here to shit on Linux for having a lot of different brands of the same thing, while it's also "insightful" to defend Microsoft from people doing, roughly, the exact same thing. Of course, the complete opposite of both is equally as "insightful."
Does anyone have any real evidence that consumers are confused about Red Hat versus SuSE, or Office Small Business versus Office Professional, or XP Home versus XP Professional, or Pert versus Suave? It seems to me that people latch onto this one particular thing and blow it way out of proportion, when in reality, it doesn't make that much of a difference to most people.
How about we just admit that the number of distributions/versions of something means dick when it comes to determining whether something is Ready For The Desktop (TM)?
Re:Microsoft continues the tradition...
on
Office 12 Exposed
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Indeed, this is just another example of the oft repeated truism about Linux on the desktop. With its two major toolkits (Qt, GTK), Linux will never succeed. It needs to be more consistent, like Windows with its... (IE, Office, Media Player, Visual Studio,...) 5+ different toolkits that Microsoft uses, and many other toolkits that other applications use (Trillian, iTunes, Winamp,...).
When will the Linux community learn that it has to be consistent to be accepted at large? They must be consistent and use a different toolkit for every application, not just two.
Yes, and a good computer science curriculum will expose you to various language paradigms like functional and logic programming in a theory of languages class. Once you learn about Lisp and Prolog, it's much easier to pick up Haskell, Mercury, ML, etc.
What will the guy who spent all his time learning only Java or C# do? He was never aware that there existed anything outside of the procedural/object oriented world that most of today's software exists in. How much harder will it be for him to adapt?
Of course, that's largely irrelevant today. There's very little demand for people who know anything that isn't a procedural, possibly object oriented language.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you say this based on the assumption that the numbers stolen were those of employees? They were not necessarily.
For instance, I got a letter that my number was stolen, because I (apparently) was on a list of people who hadn't cashed their tax return check by some date or another. I don't work for the Ohio state government, though.
The article says that 770,000 of the numbers were from tax payers, and 64,000 were from state employees.
Have you ever considered that the "other" students may be "truly learning the material" as well as the "good" students?
Sitting in a lecture 3 hours a week doesn't automatically mean you've learned the material better than someone who skips and works a bit on his own.
Yes, yes. Quite right. Hardly anybody uses gcc, or glibc, or gdb, or emacs, or bash, or...
Damn those FSF nuts for never writing any software that's good enough for use. After all, everyone knows that all you need is a bare kernel to get things done.
Configure -> Desktop -> Window Behavior
"Focus" tab:
Uncheck "Click raise active window"
"Window Actions" tab:
Left button: Set to "Activate & Pass Click" instead of "Activate, Raise & Pass Click"
Solved.
Who knows? MS fucked up somehow. Note that Google has offered desktop searching on Windows for a while now, yet it doesn't require you to format your hard drive and store all your data on some custom Google filesystem.
Certainly not because it's impossible to do something like Spotlight on other Linux filesystems. You may have heard of Beagle. It does what Spotlight does, and it works on any of the standard Linux filesystems (as far as I'm aware), as long as you have inotify enabled in the kernel. The interesting things that reiser4 and zfs do aren't specifically related to searching (although some may be able to be used for such a purpose).
Apparently, you don't know what you're talking about.
Well, that sort of compiler is sort of the holy grail of pure functional languages. The idea goes something like this:
..., and has no side effects (print statements, assignment to mutable state, etc.).
Forget your C/C++/Java/whatever. Side effects and multiple assignment are bad. Program in a pure functional language, such that all functions are referentially transparent---that is, f(x1,x2,...) always returns the same value given the same x1, x2,
Now, since most of your code is made up of referentially transparent functions, the compiler can automatically split independent pieces of code up, and perform them in parallel without fear that a call to b(x) somehow effects the results of c(y).
When you absolutely need side effects (for IO, for example), you use something (uniqueness types, monads; I'm guessing) that explicitly orders the code and in this case, would presumably prevent the compiler from parallelizing it.
Compilers aren't there yet. The things I'm (vaguely) familiar with require specific annotation of potentially parallel paths. Try Occam, for instance. Another example I've read only slightly more about is parallel Haskell, which includes similar annotation primitives (par and seq). However, just because you annotate something as parallel doesn't mean it will be performed in parallel. The compiler/runtime/I'm-not-sure-which decides what to run in parallel from among the massive potential of parallelism in such a program.
If you're asking how it's possible in Java: it isn't. But then, Java already sucks when it comes to concurrency compared to systems designed for it like, say, Erlang (which, incidentally, is VM interpreted, but still blows the pants off most conventional C/whatever programs within its application domain (massively concurrent/fault-tolerant systems), lending some credence to the point of this article, not that the same things necessarily couldn't be done with native code).
Out of curiosity: what browser does that work on? I fooled with it, and I couldn't get it to work without declaring the height of the body explicitly on either konqueror or firefox. I may not be doing it correctly either, I suppose. Do you have an example, perchance?
Changing the size of the window has similar effects. Konqueror is exhibiting correct behavior; the test wasn't designed to keep the face constant after scrolling or forcing the browser to adjust the positioning by resizing the window. It's just supposed to display correctly after you click on the link that jumps you down to the face.
From what I've read... People have made observations (measuring red shifts of stars at various distances, or something like that) that indicate that the universe's expansion has been accelerating for some billions of years now, rather than slowing, which would be what you'd expect if it were just gravity from normal matter acting on things. If I remember correctly, including a cosmological constant that explains said acceleration also happens to clear up questions related to the flatness of space (at least, I think that's right; it's been a bit since I read about it), leading them to think they're on the right track.
So, this was not exactly pulled out of thin air, unless I've been lied to.
I don't recall saying that 'blatantly' doesn't work in that sentence. I am well aware of what it means, and that it would be acceptable word choice.
However, 'patently' is also a fine word to use there, so it is an error to say that the original post was incorrect to use it. The anonymous one seemed to take special pleasure in explaining just how silly he thought the word to be, and how it related to patents in the legal system. Thus, I thought it would be appropriate to relish my own act of pointing out just how silly (patently absurd, you might say) it was to 'correct' someone for proper word use. So I did.
He probably meant "patently untrue," as in "readily visible or intelligible; obvious." Perhaps you should check a dictionary before nitpicking someone who has a larger vocabulary than you do.
He said that KDE runs fine on the machines he mentioned. Did you actually read his post? What are you saying? Your Pentium 3 with 512MB of RAM is slower than the dual Pentium 2 he's using?
I think his claim is that you and other people, apparently, don't know how to install just-the-essentials so that even old computers will perform fine using even the latest software.
Or, perhaps Gnome sucks, and you should try using KDE, which apparently works fine for him.
Of course, it's duel of the anecdotes, as it usually is here, but who's really going to trust an anonymous coward who begins his post by incorrectly accusing someone of poor diction, and follows that up by ignoring the remainder of the post, except for one line, which he uses as a basis for accusing his opponent of espousing an absurd, straw man position?
I agree with you. Was this a reply to the dude above me?
How can someone donating to a sperm bank ever give his offspring a second thought? He never knows if or when or how many kids will be the result of that donation. At most he could perhaps claim to have been thinking about the potential parents and their plight of not being able to have children.
These kids aren't adopted. These people aren't selling babies for beer money. They're selling people the opportunity to have 'their own' children, merely with someone else's genetic material. These kids weren't abandoned by some 'original' parents. Their parents are the people who went to the sperm bank, and got pregnant, and so on, specifically because they wanted a child. These children are living with their real parents. The fact that the semen came from some other guy's penis, whatever the motivation, seems like an infinitesimal part of the equation, unless you're worried about genetic diseases or something.
Uh...
What exactly is wrong with donating to a sperm bank? It allows people to have kids that might otherwise not be able to.
And what exactly is wrong with using the money for beer? Beer is good.
And how exactly could the child become emotionally scarred? By finding out at least one of his genetic parents is not part of his family? Why exactly does that matter? He has (presumably) two parents who love him and wanted him enough to go to extraordinary measures to have him. Isn't that good enough?
And if he didn't know that he was a sperm bank baby, and it does scar him, isn't it the fault of his parents that actually take care of him, for not telling him before he found it out on the internet?
Could you please expound on what, exactly, is wrong with this situation in your view? I can't figure it out beyond the possibility that you want to whine about 'them damn college students!'
I took nature's most perfect killing machine, and needlessly turned it into a robot.
Eh. It depends on what you're doing, I suppose.
The main person I knew who supported it was Knuth and pals, since I recalled reading it in Concrete Mathematics (and it's also in The Art of Computer Programming somewhere, it seems). That book, although it does go in quite a few theoretical directions, is ultimately focused around using mathematics to solve 'real' problems (for some definition of real). Knuth being a computer scientist, I suppose it's no surprise that he'd go the practical angle.
I think the other binomial theorem argument in there is dubious, as well. You could easily define the binomial theorem not to work when x, y or x + y are 0, I suppose. I don't know how much of a difference that would really make.
Ultimately mathematics is for practical use, I think (although I do enjoy it for purely masturbational purposes), so defining 0^0 as to satisfy the most important cases does make some sense to me.
But, I think the strongest arguments against it are the things you can derive from it. For instance, 0^0 = 1 implies 0/0 = 1, from which (I think) you can derive that x/0 = 1 for any x. But then, from that you can derive x/0 = y for any x and y, which doesn't make any sense, or even weirder stuff like y = 1 for all y. So, you have to say something like 0^0 = 1 but you're not allowed to derive all the bad stuff from it, which is rather inconsistent, I agree.
That's not generally agreed upon.
e rs/0to0/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci-math-faq/specialnumb
There were/are mathematicians who argue that 0^0 is 1, and those that argue that it's undefined.
How do you turn 180 degrees with that controller?
The revolution controller will probably provide a more realistic experience for FPS. You'll aim your gun by pointing, and the analog stick will control movement, which mimics aiming your gun quickly but separately from the slow action of walking and turning around on your feet.
However, a keyboard and mouse player will still probably beat you, depending on the game, because they are still faster. If they hear gunfire behind them, they can almost instantly be facing the opposite direction, while it takes you a little while.
Perhaps I'm not imaginative enough, though. Can you come up with a method of using the Revolution controller that allows snap turning that's as quick and precise as a mouse? I cannot.
Not that I'm down on the controller. I think it's an interesting design, and am eager to see where it goes.
There have been similar previews for KDE 3.5 as well. These were even featured on Slashdot.
Perhaps it might be wise to, for example, wait and try the controller first. That way, you can base your opinion off of your experiences and actual data, rather than making assumptions based on pictures and a hype video with actors who clearly aren't actually playing games.
Your point is obvious. Nobody wants innovation for the sake of innovation if the result is crap. However, assuming that it's crap just because it's different is equally stupid, and people do it frequently. I imagine that the original poster was merely expressing a hope that people will be willing enough to accept a positive change, if that is in fact what this is, rather than simply rejecting it as too different.
Although they don't come in 30" sizes, the Dell wide-screen monitors are also something to consider. They come in 20" and 24" models.
I don't think I've seen a negative report of one, and I must say, my 24" is quite luxurious. In fact, I recall seeing a review of the 24" Dell versus a 23" Apple display, and the reviewer preferred the Dell (of course, I can't speak for everyone on that).
The big one is kind of expensive, and it doesn't get quite as big as the Apple models do, but they're quite nice. I believe the model numbers are 2005fpw, and 2405fpw.
Indeed.
Since when are all the different Linux distributions perceived as good? Perhaps you've missed the countless Score:5 Insightful posts here on Slashdot, and every lauded Linux Is Not Ready For The Desktop article which bitches about how many distributions there are.
I, for one, don't care how many Linux distributions there are, nor do I care how many versions of Windows there are. Of course, I think the Windows situation is a little harrier, since each has slightly different restrictions and functionality (am I allowed to run more than 3 programs on this one? Is my networking restricted on that one? etc.), whereas all the Linux distributions are essentially different brands of the same thing, like toothpaste or something (notice that nobody complains about how confusing it is for consumers to choose between Crest, Colgate and Aquafresh, or the hundreds of brands of shampoos and body soaps and lotions out there). But I don't think that distinction is going to make any practical difference.
So, what you're missing is that it's "insightful" around here to shit on Linux for having a lot of different brands of the same thing, while it's also "insightful" to defend Microsoft from people doing, roughly, the exact same thing. Of course, the complete opposite of both is equally as "insightful."
Does anyone have any real evidence that consumers are confused about Red Hat versus SuSE, or Office Small Business versus Office Professional, or XP Home versus XP Professional, or Pert versus Suave? It seems to me that people latch onto this one particular thing and blow it way out of proportion, when in reality, it doesn't make that much of a difference to most people.
How about we just admit that the number of distributions/versions of something means dick when it comes to determining whether something is Ready For The Desktop (TM)?
Indeed, this is just another example of the oft repeated truism about Linux on the desktop. With its two major toolkits (Qt, GTK), Linux will never succeed. It needs to be more consistent, like Windows with its... (IE, Office, Media Player, Visual Studio, ...) 5+ different toolkits that Microsoft uses, and many other toolkits that other applications use (Trillian, iTunes, Winamp, ...).
When will the Linux community learn that it has to be consistent to be accepted at large? They must be consistent and use a different toolkit for every application, not just two.
Yes, and a good computer science curriculum will expose you to various language paradigms like functional and logic programming in a theory of languages class. Once you learn about Lisp and Prolog, it's much easier to pick up Haskell, Mercury, ML, etc.
What will the guy who spent all his time learning only Java or C# do? He was never aware that there existed anything outside of the procedural/object oriented world that most of today's software exists in. How much harder will it be for him to adapt?
Of course, that's largely irrelevant today. There's very little demand for people who know anything that isn't a procedural, possibly object oriented language.