Everyone always forgets the Jeopardy one. In that one, Alex Trebec is asking the contestants about their background. Both of the losers (one at 0, one in the (-) ), says their background is Yale/Harvard/etc. They get up to the "Ken" of the group and the follwing occurs:
Alex: So, person I hear that you will be in the 8th grade next year. Will you be teaching it?
Person: No. Attending, Alex.
Alex: You are attending the 8th grade?
Person: What is "Yes", but I did stay at a holiday inn last night. How about some harder questions, here?
Alex Trebec looks dumbfounded
Something like that at least... Best. One. EVAR. (Ok, yeh. I'm plastered).
There are several reasons why it makes sense for Google not to bow to the Open Source movement and users, first and foremost being that people who use *nix don't need this level of ease. Second of which, being that they've tried to appeal to this crowd by offering the least evil solution in most markets they enter into. But thirdly, it's because Open Source zealots are a bunch of backstabbing pricks that don't recognize a good thing when it's handed to them or their loved ones that -don't- run free-as-in-speech everything.
I'll get modded down for this, but "Amen, brother". (And this from an "OSS Zealot"). Unfortunately, I can't say as much for other pars of your post, though:
They should get credit for that much, rather than attacked and derided for not supporting an Operating System that can't get its shit together even to agree on a standard way of installing software.
I run Debian on headless servers, but after trying to install various flavors of *nix on my P2-366 Toughbook, determined that none of the distributions will handle such a low-spec system as well as even -XP- does. Quit whining about Google and fix that crap.
Not sure about everyone else's experience (e.g EEMMV), but I can get Debian (the only distro that ever works out of the box for me) to run on just about anything.
I intend to use it, simply because it installs updates automatically, and I use the software either way. It sounds like a great way for me to "install and forget"... which is good.
Don't get me wrong here... I have done the whole "maintain your box" thing for a while, in both the linux and windows fields. Along the way, I discovered that it's far simpler to have something else manage the updates and installs--e.g. it's not worth my time (in my personal life) to deal with it.
When you look at it, Google is adding something like apt/ports/yum/portage to windows... and doing it for 3rd party software. Only way I can see this getting any better is if they throw in a free firewall & OpenOffice. (Either may be there, but not be listed on the page... I have yet to install the software).
No, it doesn't. The commenter was holding up Firefox as an example of a good OSS C++ project. This might be it's current identity but is not how it started out. It became an OSS project only after it failed in the marketplace.
You know, I could spend time coming up with an eloquent response to this reasoning, but I fear that it is somehow not worth my time...
So it is closed source, like I said.
Actually, I believe your message said: "KDE; is not open source.", which is wrong. Both KDE and Qt are released under the GPL. Last I checked, that was the paragon of open source licenses around these parts. That Qt has a proprietary license is irrelevant to the statement, as open and closed source are not mutually exclusive.
XGL is a hardware accelerated x-server, which uses the 3D pipeline to render graphics. We should care because it will allow future developers to create whole manner of different effects (vector graphic scaling & rendering, interesting window effects, pixel shaded effects (bump mapping buttons), etc).
If you are in the windows or mac worlds, there's not much of a reason to get excited... OSX already does this, and Vista will as well. But for those of us in *nix world who want eye-candy, it's quite A Good Thing (tm).
From what I have read about Plasma, the icons will be treated as "dashboard widgets" themselves. There shouldn't be a problem with that. Of course, this is a drastic simplification of the whole thing. For more information, I recommend you look at the Plasma Project and the Appeal Project. Reading Aaron Seigo's blog may shed some light on things as well.
If you get even the tiniest scratch on the ROM MARK on the disc, the disc is UNUSABLE.
Could you provide a link for this information? I did a few Google searches and this is the best I could come up with... but it doesn't say anything about there being problems if the disk becomes scratched.
FWIW, most optical drives at the moment have excellent error correction capabilities. You need a pretty deep scratch across the ROM Mark for it to make the disk completely unusable. I would be surprised if Sony didn't account for this when they designed the protection scheme.
Re:Not really a whole lot of choice about this one
on
Trustworthy Computing
·
· Score: 1
Erg. in the post above, "pr0n" should read "pr0n^H^H^H^H"... why the hell does/. disable strikethrough??
Re:Not really a whole lot of choice about this one
on
Trustworthy Computing
·
· Score: 1
Other choices:
Use an alternative OS
Do not use the pr0n Internet
Do not open any images
Do not use your computer
Use your computer as is and reinstall windows after a patch is released
Wrong. You can create *multiple* labels on one message, you can't create nested labels.
To clarify: Whether or not someone feels they are necessary is opinion. I get by perfectly well without needing any hierarchy within my labels. I assume that most other users do as well, as nested labels have not been implemented.
When you provide another option, you are not necessarily making it more complex. For example they can provide IMAP, but sell and provide instructions for use in POP. IMAP they can leave to the techies.
They have to specify a way to enable IMAP support. This involves designing, coding, & maintaining the associated interface code.
They have to set up their IMAP servers, verification systems, security, load balancing, etc. After they have the systems set up, they also need to maintain those servers.
They also have to update their security systems to allow IMAP protocols to pass through, potentially including application-layer filtering.
They have to provide support personnel to aid the Joe Blows who don't know what they are doing, and subsequently mess up their accounts over IMAP.
I doubt that bypassing the gmail interface is one of the predominant reasons for disabling IMAP. You have 3rd-party client support via POP, and can set your account up to redirect from gmail to another email address... both of which bypass gmail proper.
First of all, I think that Google developers use the Extreme Programming paradigm (or another agile development model). This explains pretty well why they have such incredibly long beta periods.
No exe or zips: This is a workaround for people who use MSIE or Outlook to open their mail. The GMail team most likely thought that the inability to send files with certain extensions was a suitable tradeoff for eliminating viral activity on their service. E.g. It's a feature, not a bug.
No nested labels: I can't say much about this, as it is opinion.
Whim of an external comany: This is why they provide POP facilities. It allows you to back up your email to another computer. Concerning IMAP vs POP, it would be nice if they had IMAP facilities, but it's most likely a combination of 2 factors:
It becomes more costly to support multiple services like that.
It would make the "simplicity" portion of gmail a bit too complex. Blow Joe won't want to investigate the difference... but would get rather angry if his email wasn't "around" when he wanted it to. Better to have it make a full copy the POP way, then to confuse him with IMAP.
And what's all this shite about "..the standoffs are 2cm offset from the ATX standard.."? Have you even seen a BTX board?
He was talking about the Dell "ATX" mobos, actually. The mounting points for those boards are slightly divergent from the standard for ATX. I believe their intent was to force users through Dell's website for upgrades, albeit they probably justified it using other means. (I have no clue if they still operate in this manner, but it was definitely true a few years ago).
Wikipedia on the uncertainty principle. The overview is particularly interesting, given the nature of your inquiry. In the mean time, I'll try to offer a hackneyed version of my understanding.:)
Position exists independent of time. Momentum, on the other hand, is expressed as mass * velocity, where velocity is actually a distance travelled over time. The overall relation is: (mass*[change in position])/[change in time]
This equation tells us something incredibly important: velocity cannot exist in an instant. How does it do this? Well, an instant is not a duration; it is a snapshot. Time doesn't change at all. If we insert this into our equation for momentum, we get:
(mass*[change in position])/0 which is a mathematical impossibility.
Meanwhile, position only exists when that reference to time is removed... It can only be monitored during an instant. This can be shown simply by expanding the equations for velocity:
position = velocity(time) + initial_position (meters/second)(seconds) + meters = (meter-seconds/second) = meters
So, as you can see, one form "exists" only when the other cannot possibly do so.
As for your question concerning knowing point A, B, and the time between: that is only an approximation. What occurs is that we have a certain set of information, and we derive a "best guess" about what is happening. We still don't know if the particle when from A to B directly, however. say we are dealing with an electron circling an atom. It could have moved directly from A to B, or it might have orbited the atom 20 times and only coincidentally ended up at B when we measured it. Without knowing the momentum at A, we can't possibly figure out what happened.
It's not exactly laymans terms, but high-school physics is about as layman as I can get. Hope this helps!
Actually, twice 48 is 96... which has the same order of magnitude (10^1).
Two orders of magnitude would be 10^2, giving a total of 4,800, using your logic.
Luckily, most people ignore the actual number given (in this case 48) and reduce it to it's order of magnitude as well. In this case, the order of magnitude is 1 (10^1 being more pertinent to this discussion). So, if we take 10^1 & multiply it by 10^2, we get 10^3, or 1,000. QED.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that would be Willy Wonka and the Choclate Factory . Sorry to nitpick, but I am quite the fan :)
Something like that at least... Best. One. EVAR. (Ok, yeh. I'm plastered).
I'll get modded down for this, but "Amen, brother". (And this from an "OSS Zealot"). Unfortunately, I can't say as much for other pars of your post, though:
Not sure about everyone else's experience (e.g EEMMV), but I can get Debian (the only distro that ever works out of the box for me) to run on just about anything.
Don't get me wrong here... I have done the whole "maintain your box" thing for a while, in both the linux and windows fields. Along the way, I discovered that it's far simpler to have something else manage the updates and installs--e.g. it's not worth my time (in my personal life) to deal with it.
When you look at it, Google is adding something like apt/ports/yum/portage to windows... and doing it for 3rd party software. Only way I can see this getting any better is if they throw in a free firewall & OpenOffice. (Either may be there, but not be listed on the page... I have yet to install the software).
I clicked the link too. Just as with the 2004 election, I already knew what was going to happen, so why delay the inevitable? ;)
Actually, he's more likely to be a philosopher ;)
You know, I could spend time coming up with an eloquent response to this reasoning, but I fear that it is somehow not worth my time...
So it is closed source, like I said.
Actually, I believe your message said: " KDE; is not open source.", which is wrong. Both KDE and Qt are released under the GPL. Last I checked, that was the paragon of open source licenses around these parts. That Qt has a proprietary license is irrelevant to the statement, as open and closed source are not mutually exclusive.
Concerning KDE: Wrong on several counts.
If you are in the windows or mac worlds, there's not much of a reason to get excited... OSX already does this, and Vista will as well. But for those of us in *nix world who want eye-candy, it's quite A Good Thing (tm).
There hasn't been a Google article posted today! Somebody put that up on the front page!!
*thinks* but... then Google would be on the front page... damn paradox.
From what I have read about Plasma, the icons will be treated as "dashboard widgets" themselves. There shouldn't be a problem with that. Of course, this is a drastic simplification of the whole thing. For more information, I recommend you look at the Plasma Project and the Appeal Project. Reading Aaron Seigo's blog may shed some light on things as well.
Yes.
Could you provide a link for this information? I did a few Google searches and this is the best I could come up with... but it doesn't say anything about there being problems if the disk becomes scratched.
FWIW, most optical drives at the moment have excellent error correction capabilities. You need a pretty deep scratch across the ROM Mark for it to make the disk completely unusable. I would be surprised if Sony didn't account for this when they designed the protection scheme.
Erg. in the post above, "pr0n" should read "pr0n^H^H^H^H" ... why the hell does /. disable strikethrough??
And let's not forget that "vulnerability" is misspelled. ;)
To clarify: Whether or not someone feels they are necessary is opinion. I get by perfectly well without needing any hierarchy within my labels. I assume that most other users do as well, as nested labels have not been implemented.
I doubt that bypassing the gmail interface is one of the predominant reasons for disabling IMAP. You have 3rd-party client support via POP, and can set your account up to redirect from gmail to another email address... both of which bypass gmail proper.
$parent_post =~ s/Blow Joe/Joe Blow/
- No exe or zips: This is a workaround for people who use MSIE or Outlook to open their mail. The GMail team most likely thought that the inability to send files with certain extensions was a suitable tradeoff for eliminating viral activity on their service. E.g. It's a feature, not a bug.
- No nested labels: I can't say much about this, as it is opinion.
- Whim of an external comany: This is why they provide POP facilities. It allows you to back up your email to another computer. Concerning IMAP vs POP, it would be nice if they had IMAP facilities, but it's most likely a combination of 2 factors:
- It becomes more costly to support multiple services like that.
- It would make the "simplicity" portion of gmail a bit too complex. Blow Joe won't want to investigate the difference... but would get rather angry if his email wasn't "around" when he wanted it to. Better to have it make a full copy the POP way, then to confuse him with IMAP.
Just my $.02He was talking about the Dell "ATX" mobos, actually. The mounting points for those boards are slightly divergent from the standard for ATX. I believe their intent was to force users through Dell's website for upgrades, albeit they probably justified it using other means. (I have no clue if they still operate in this manner, but it was definitely true a few years ago).
I think he was trying to be funny.
Position exists independent of time. Momentum, on the other hand, is expressed as mass * velocity, where velocity is actually a distance travelled over time. The overall relation is:
(mass*[change in position])/[change in time]
This equation tells us something incredibly important: velocity cannot exist in an instant. How does it do this? Well, an instant is not a duration; it is a snapshot. Time doesn't change at all. If we insert this into our equation for momentum, we get:
(mass*[change in position])/0
which is a mathematical impossibility.
Meanwhile, position only exists when that reference to time is removed... It can only be monitored during an instant. This can be shown simply by expanding the equations for velocity:
position = velocity(time) + initial_position
(meters/second)(seconds) + meters
= (meter-seconds/second)
= meters
So, as you can see, one form "exists" only when the other cannot possibly do so.
As for your question concerning knowing point A, B, and the time between: that is only an approximation. What occurs is that we have a certain set of information, and we derive a "best guess" about what is happening. We still don't know if the particle when from A to B directly, however. say we are dealing with an electron circling an atom. It could have moved directly from A to B, or it might have orbited the atom 20 times and only coincidentally ended up at B when we measured it. Without knowing the momentum at A, we can't possibly figure out what happened.
It's not exactly laymans terms, but high-school physics is about as layman as I can get. Hope this helps!
I stand corrected. :)
Guess that shows how much I watch either.
1) It's just a moniker.
2) Most of the time I "go with the flow" or make lame jokes... but I get fed up when I see crap like this.
Two orders of magnitude would be 10^2, giving a total of 4,800, using your logic.
Luckily, most people ignore the actual number given (in this case 48) and reduce it to it's order of magnitude as well. In this case, the order of magnitude is 1 (10^1 being more pertinent to this discussion). So, if we take 10^1 & multiply it by 10^2, we get 10^3, or 1,000. QED.