Veggies on the other hand - that's back when they were still nutritious and had the vitamins and stuff...
... and gardens were fertilised with human shit, and then the veggies were either eaten unwashed or washed in... well, have you read about the sanitation issues they had back then?
KDE was '96, GNOME '97.. in 1999 you'd already have KDE 2.0
KDE 2.0 wasn't released until 2000. And prior to 3.0, KDE was still a bit too rough an average user (I tried, trust me). GNOME didn't have a working release until 1999, for some definition of "working" that I also wouldn't inflict on anyone I needed to support.
I think RHL 9 was really when things came together in a state where a Linux Desktop wasn't an uphill battle.
When Outlook kicked Lotus Notes to the curb they locked that market up good.
I can't give Outlook much credit for that. Lotus Notes was its own worst enemy.
Linux has been ready for the desktop since about 1999...
Eh, no, not really. You're talking about a KDE 1.0, pre-Gnome desktop... I used it, but I wouldn't have inflicted it on anyone I needed to support. Five years later it was certainly reasonable, at least where the average non-technical user was concerned.
Last house I bought out in the country, the previous owners told me they'd lived there 15 years and only bothered putting a lock on the door because the real estate agent insisted.
House break ins in rural areas are relatively rare, really. It's far more common for big ticket items outside the home to be stolen... trailers, ATV's, tools from the shed, horse saddles and other tack, etc. There's usually quite a bit more liquid commodities parked outside the average country home than inside.
Does the US decision indicate that following the ban would "require it [Google] to violate the laws of another jurisdiction"?
I haven't actually read more than a quick summary of the US decision, so I really can't speak to the details and how/if the court tries to align it with the Canadian decision.
I'm mainly just pointing out that this new ruling was a logical and expected outcome rather than some sort of brutal US court smackdown that the press seems to have spun it.
[46] If Google has evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary the interlocutory order accordingly. To date, Google has made no such application.
[47] In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Googleâ(TM)s right to seek a rectifying order, it hardly seems equitable to deny Equustek the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible. We are dealing with the Internet after all, and the balance of convenience test has to take full account of its inevitable extraterritorial reach when injunctive relief is being sought against an entity like Google.
Granted, IANAL, but I can't really see any other interpretation than "get a decision from another country saying this is a problem and get back to us".
My understanding is that in their ruling, the Canadian Supreme Court basically pointed out that while it was possible that their decision would violate laws in other countries, nobody hadn't presented any arguments or evidence to that effect.
In other words, they specifically left it open as an "out" for Google: prove that the ruling violated US law and they'd be able to walk it back.
You mean creating one UserAgent per thread doesn't cut it? Because that seems like par for the course.
It's difficult to impose a "only simultaneous connections to any one server" rule if you don't have a shared connection cache/pool, for example.
Caching is really where I find the friction with the threading model starts... caches are something which should usually be shared by threads, and perl makes that quite awkward.
"We will immediately repeal and replace Obamacare - and nobody can do that like me. We will save $'s and have much better healthcare! ~Candidate Donald Trump, Feb 9, 2016.
You have to admit that he was right about the first part; I don't believe anyone has never seen an immediate Obamacare repeal and replace happen the way Trump did it...
Point of fact: for a simple pool of worker threads with a single work queue and a single result queue, the threading model is perfect.
Even that model falls down very quickly for non-trivial cases. For example, last I checked user a LWP::UserAgent across threads was a fail...
I understand why it's such a mess; threading was something added as a bag on the side rather than having the interpreter designed around it. I'd just have preferred to see Perl 6 as a compatible refactoring rather than as a new-ish language.
I suppose my hope was that Perl 6 would have strong compatibility with 5 so as to make the transition as least painful as possible. I wouldn't expect compatibility at the XSUB level, obviously, but having to run gazillions of lines of old code through a compatibility layer to make it work doesn't give me warm and fuzzies. It worked for 4-5, but that was a different time.
Perl 6 might be the best thing since sliced bread, but if I can't sanely migrate to it then it's not solving my problems...
Sure, there are a few weird warts on the language ("bless" being the most obvious example), but it's no worse than any other
After 20 years of perl coding, there are still two things which truly horrify me about the language.
Perl 5's multi-threading model is less of a wart and more of a complete shitshow. Effectively it gives you all the power of fork() with all of the convenience of fork(). 25 years ago that was (barely) okay.
And the interface at the C level (i.e. XSUB) is just... baroque and broke.
I had hopes for Perl 6, but I suspect I'll be retired before I need to write a single Perl 6 script...
In Microsoft's defence (and believe me, I don't defend them often), if they're eating their own dog food and running development versions of Edge (like they should be) and/or if the system they're demoing on is a development system, then it shouldn't come as a huge surprise to see something shit the bed like that.
I don't doubt that Google folks have the occasional moment like that running Chrome or Android or whatnot...
Is anyone else a little bothered by the idea that the government needs to "do something" about inaccurate news?
I certainly think they need to do something about innacurate news.
For example, I'd gladly support the government establishing and funding an education system which sends young people out into the world with the basic critical thinking skills to understand (or even suspect) when they're being fed bullshit.
Sadly, I expect we'll be sticking with the status quo...
I opened an account, followed some people, and every time I check, it just looks like a random mess of information.
I'm kind of hoping that increasing the limit will encourage people to write actual coherent sentences with articles and punctuation and nifty stuff like that, but I'm not holding my breath...
The big selling point for Microsoft should be that you install the software on your own machines, your corporate data never leaves your building.
True, but if they don't do cloud then they don't have a chance in hell in the mobile space. No mobile solutions means not growth and effectively ceding that entire market to Google.
Not that their mobile efforts have amounted to anything worthwhile so far, but I get the thought process behind it.
Mind you, that still doesn't explain dropping $26B for LinkedIn....
More likely it wasn't actually Dynamite. They said "dynamite", but given that they didn't need to do any real damage to the house getting it out I suspect it was something quite a bit more stable... some variant of TNT would be a more likely guess.
Either way, it's almost certainly not an approved storage method.
Slashdot Mirror
KDE 2.0 wasn't released until 2000. And prior to 3.0, KDE was still a bit too rough an average user (I tried, trust me). GNOME didn't have a working release until 1999, for some definition of "working" that I also wouldn't inflict on anyone I needed to support.
I think RHL 9 was really when things came together in a state where a Linux Desktop wasn't an uphill battle.
I can't give Outlook much credit for that. Lotus Notes was its own worst enemy.
Eh, no, not really. You're talking about a KDE 1.0, pre-Gnome desktop... I used it, but I wouldn't have inflicted it on anyone I needed to support. Five years later it was certainly reasonable, at least where the average non-technical user was concerned.
Last house I bought out in the country, the previous owners told me they'd lived there 15 years and only bothered putting a lock on the door because the real estate agent insisted.
House break ins in rural areas are relatively rare, really. It's far more common for big ticket items outside the home to be stolen... trailers, ATV's, tools from the shed, horse saddles and other tack, etc. There's usually quite a bit more liquid commodities parked outside the average country home than inside.
I haven't actually read more than a quick summary of the US decision, so I really can't speak to the details and how/if the court tries to align it with the Canadian decision.
I'm mainly just pointing out that this new ruling was a logical and expected outcome rather than some sort of brutal US court smackdown that the press seems to have spun it.
It's right there in the decision itself...
Granted, IANAL, but I can't really see any other interpretation than "get a decision from another country saying this is a problem and get back to us".
My understanding is that in their ruling, the Canadian Supreme Court basically pointed out that while it was possible that their decision would violate laws in other countries, nobody hadn't presented any arguments or evidence to that effect.
In other words, they specifically left it open as an "out" for Google: prove that the ruling violated US law and they'd be able to walk it back.
It's difficult to impose a "only simultaneous connections to any one server" rule if you don't have a shared connection cache/pool, for example.
Caching is really where I find the friction with the threading model starts... caches are something which should usually be shared by threads, and perl makes that quite awkward.
... since the bug only triggers when the driver uses the turning signal.
You have to admit that he was right about the first part; I don't believe anyone has never seen an immediate Obamacare repeal and replace happen the way Trump did it...
Even that model falls down very quickly for non-trivial cases. For example, last I checked user a LWP::UserAgent across threads was a fail...
I understand why it's such a mess; threading was something added as a bag on the side rather than having the interpreter designed around it. I'd just have preferred to see Perl 6 as a compatible refactoring rather than as a new-ish language.
Don't be silly.
Why go to all that hassle when we can just wait around for an asteroid to hit and do all the work for free?
I suppose my hope was that Perl 6 would have strong compatibility with 5 so as to make the transition as least painful as possible. I wouldn't expect compatibility at the XSUB level, obviously, but having to run gazillions of lines of old code through a compatibility layer to make it work doesn't give me warm and fuzzies. It worked for 4-5, but that was a different time.
Perl 6 might be the best thing since sliced bread, but if I can't sanely migrate to it then it's not solving my problems...
After 20 years of perl coding, there are still two things which truly horrify me about the language.
Perl 5's multi-threading model is less of a wart and more of a complete shitshow. Effectively it gives you all the power of fork() with all of the convenience of fork(). 25 years ago that was (barely) okay.
And the interface at the C level (i.e. XSUB) is just... baroque and broke.
I had hopes for Perl 6, but I suspect I'll be retired before I need to write a single Perl 6 script...
I'd say Microsoft has spent the better part of a decade repeatedly demonstrating that they're not serious about it.
In Microsoft's defence (and believe me, I don't defend them often), if they're eating their own dog food and running development versions of Edge (like they should be) and/or if the system they're demoing on is a development system, then it shouldn't come as a huge surprise to see something shit the bed like that.
I don't doubt that Google folks have the occasional moment like that running Chrome or Android or whatnot...
Let's just file this one under "news for nerds" rather than "stuff that matters" and move on with out lives...
To be honest, that's starting to look like a spectacularly good idea.
Er... you do mean backdoors only on law enforcement communications, right?
I think you'd find that they don't use Edge, they use "that button, down there".
They count for traffic stats, but for brand building or awareness they're worthless...
I certainly think they need to do something about innacurate news.
For example, I'd gladly support the government establishing and funding an education system which sends young people out into the world with the basic critical thinking skills to understand (or even suspect) when they're being fed bullshit.
Sadly, I expect we'll be sticking with the status quo...
I'm kind of hoping that increasing the limit will encourage people to write actual coherent sentences with articles and punctuation and nifty stuff like that, but I'm not holding my breath...
True, but if they don't do cloud then they don't have a chance in hell in the mobile space. No mobile solutions means not growth and effectively ceding that entire market to Google.
Not that their mobile efforts have amounted to anything worthwhile so far, but I get the thought process behind it.
Mind you, that still doesn't explain dropping $26B for LinkedIn....
I suspect more than a bit of it is turnaround for the ribbing the Apple people were giving to the Moto 360 watch's "flat tire".
The problem is that "being shut down" makes for a better click-bait headline than "being replaced" or "being renamed". I guess.
More likely it wasn't actually Dynamite. They said "dynamite", but given that they didn't need to do any real damage to the house getting it out I suspect it was something quite a bit more stable... some variant of TNT would be a more likely guess.
Either way, it's almost certainly not an approved storage method.