Typical European attire (trousers and shirt; proper shoes or sandals), except from the thrift store, softsider, no mobile phone, resume plaintext, no electronic devices at all, card (although not a "business card"), and shots (of cheap Scotch or gin).
No. I've alwaysed used ext3, because although I like ReiserFS, ext3 is more stable and has drivers for Windows if I need them in a pinch. My big 'data' drives that I occasionally give to friends are all formatted with ext3 and a tiny fat partition with an ext3 driver installer for Windows.
The theory is neat, but, for instance I'm both. I just vary: sometimes I am one or the other; for some things I am one, and the opposite for others. Sometimes very creative, spur-of-the-moment, unfortunately disorganised; other times very methodical, cautios, calculative, planned, uncreative. To be fair, I would have trouble believing it myself if someone else told me they were like that. And to tell the truth, for most projects I feel that a combination of the two "poles" is most helpful.
Partly for the modern use of the language. You will learn a great deal about your own language, English, and learn the basic roots of all the Romance languages and plenty of words in many other languages. You will also, by analysing the roots and perhaps by examining a smattering of Greek into the bargain, be able to decipher the meaning of another five thousand words in twenty languages that you've never heard before -- by deduction from Lation roots, prefixes and suffixes. Just remember to keep your own speech essentially Anglo-Saxon, but you can use your newfound knowledge of English for those occasions when a Saxon word won't do.
The other is the body of great literature that you will use while mastering the language. As a student, your texts will not be the boring invented rubbish you use with most languages (The bird flew into the tree; Johnny threw his ball.) but the actual literature of ancient Rome and of most civilised discourse until modern times. And let me tell you, that process can teach you a great deal about life, death and love, war and friendship, politics and law, and many other topics besides. The reason is just that from so far back, only the best literature is preserved, and you get to start on it immediately.
With someone, sure. In a formal context (say, the news) about someone, sure. (Although this is only in Europe, in the US they use titles for politicians and just last name for everybody else, hence Senator Obama, but just Gates). But the point is, he was just talking about Gates, not to him or about him in a formal context. To be clear, he evidently did not think of his context as formal.
Just to give historical context: the gas in question was not known to be poisonous at the time (today we know that really old or young people might die). Politically, it would be the modern equivalent of tear gas or taser (if you could spray taser electrodes).
As another Slashdotter pointed out, the main problem with the site, which one grant won't permanently fix, is that its inherent appeal is not as great as a big modern attraction such as a theme park or similar. Yet the site has great historical and emotional, and even personal value to anyone whose parents or grandparents fought in the war. It is a really crucial site, and as such many people would be interested in keeping it running.
So is it possible to keep the site running on a more long-term basis by volunteer efforts and donations? I realise this grant is something like a donation, but a grant is not really a donation. The site means a lot to many people in the UK (and other places as well); there should be a simple system to donate, or if you live nearby or have a spare weekend, a way of donating your time or even services to keeping the site running and in repair.
What's actually incorrect in his point of view? Nothing. This lack of freedom may be ever so unnoticeable, and ever so convenient, and for a lot of situations, there's nothing wrong with it at all, and sometimes everything (but freedom) right. That still doesn't change his basic argument, which is quite correct, if you look at it dispassionately. It's just that most people value the advantages some proprietary pieces of software and their vendors offer, value them more than the freedom of that software. That doesn't make that a bad or wrong decision (freedom is, after all, not the ultimate object in everything). It's as you say: you value software that just works above software which is free. He values software that is free above all. He is not calling you a dumb slave, merely pointing out the power that companies have over your software, which is probably not a worry at all for you (or for many others), but it's not incorrect either.
-1 Troll. Stallman has always been head of the FSF, and it is today a highly respected organisation, not to mention Stallman is single-handedly responsible for launching free software and writing half of the original GNU.
I like your reasoned arguments ("utter nonsense"). Stallman thinks that proprietary software is ethically wrong and harmful to society. Agree with him or not, he has presented a coherent argument. You have merely presented an ad hominem.
Because I'm sure you (as everyone ought) refer to Mr. Cruise and Ms. Kidman, or Mrs. Spears and Mr. Timberlake (I'm sorry, I may be out of date, Mr. Msgmonkey) and good Ms. Winfrey's show, and the OS that Mr. Torvalds wrote. I'm sure you always debate the merits of Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, as well as Mrs. Clinton when she was still running. To refer to them as any other way would be as insulting and offensive as neglecting the prefixes on Mr. Emeril's or Dr. House's television shows.
I was agreeing with you until you pulled the nationalistic claptrap. 1776 hadn't anything to do with a feudal system, and Britain at the time was a capitalist economy, and the US obviously followed in those footsteps. 1776 was about completely different things -- the question of self-determination, to be blunt.
If he fought in Korea and Vietnam -- not to diminish what he did, but those were not defensive wars -- then he hardly fought for the sustainment of democracy in this country. Veterans of the Revolution, the War of 1812 perhaps, and possibly WWII might claim that distinction.
There is a popular view that anyone who serves in the armed forces is helping uphold democracy and freedom. This is simply not true; only sometimes can it be said to be true. They do not become defenders of their country merely for enlisting, and certainly not for having fought in a high-profile war like Korea or Vietnam.
And I fully expect I'll be modded flamebait for this, given how popular and staunchly held the view is.
With the obvious exception of Russia, they're all in the top 8. Because the G8 has always been about economic clout, not necessarily just size. This is why Russia is in there, but not India or Brazil.
The G8+5 countries form a list with a less arbitrary cutoff, but that is irrelevant, because everyone is interested in clout, not size.
This whole fancy algorithm seems to say nothing more than that if people voted based on items of personality abstracted from name, Colin Powell would be the most popular choice. Doubtless if they had instead asked who was the best presidential candidate out of everyone in public office, he would have come up first too. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with parties or hierarchies -- just a ranking based on popularity.
Sadly, it's also pretty moot, as people vote based on names, not personalities. Colin Powell the man and Colin Powell the name are different things (and the same is true for every person in the world).
I've used VNC (TightVNC) heavily a few years ago (before I went completely text-mode) and I can recall that though it was annoying to have a speed lag, it was still perfectly usable, and I used it a lot.
During that time, I was also given access to a Windows box via RDP, from a Windows client. It was on the same pipe, but what struck me was how awfully, awfully slow it was. I could watch the mouse trails crawl across the desktop. Obviously, they may have improved their compression over the past few years.
Getting back to screen though, I think it would be very difficult to argue that any product, from any computing world, even approaches it in terms of features and power. I don't know what you mean by "maintain an entire work session state across several locations", but if you mean accessing a remote session, then sure screen can do that. You can also use the session from multiple locations at once, it has a built-in window manager, it can monitor windows, filter the output or input of windows into pipes, keep and search (vi-style) the scrollback buffer, etc. A lot of its power is admittedly due to the fact that text is inherently more flexible and simple than graphical widgets. You can't, for instance, filter the output of an arbitrary (say, non-modifiable) application in a GUI without a hideous amount of pain and effort (basically by converting it to text). I can access my screen session using just a javascript-enabled browser, for instance (anyterm and ajaxterm).
These are just some reasons I went text-mode. I just found replacements for all the last graphical apps I had been using (firefox->elinks, gaim->irssi/bitlbee) and in a few weeks I was more productive than I had been before.
Just kidding, I love it too. My hardstatus shows my next calendar item, latest email from and subject, followed by hostname and current command. On the right is a little elinks-style "led" with one-character status messages (away on irc, screen locked, new irc messages, how many new emails) followed by the date and time. The caption (caption always and hardstatus alwayslastline) above it is then given entirely to the windows, with the current one highlighted.
I prefer the same, but use screen -ROAD (actually screen -ROAD main, to jump to my "main" session). This additionally resizes the terminals and fixes the termcaps, plus of course it's a great mnemonic.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and Linux for everyday use, BSD for my servers and gateways.
I'm glad I don't fit into those stereotypes!
Typical European attire (trousers and shirt; proper shoes or sandals), except from the thrift store, softsider, no mobile phone, resume plaintext, no electronic devices at all, card (although not a "business card"), and shots (of cheap Scotch or gin).
SUSE. I've used both; OpenSUSE kicks Mandriva's arse. It has all that you mention and is more stable and has better packages to boot.
No. I've alwaysed used ext3, because although I like ReiserFS, ext3 is more stable and has drivers for Windows if I need them in a pinch. My big 'data' drives that I occasionally give to friends are all formatted with ext3 and a tiny fat partition with an ext3 driver installer for Windows.
The theory is neat, but, for instance I'm both. I just vary: sometimes I am one or the other; for some things I am one, and the opposite for others. Sometimes very creative, spur-of-the-moment, unfortunately disorganised; other times very methodical, cautios, calculative, planned, uncreative. To be fair, I would have trouble believing it myself if someone else told me they were like that. And to tell the truth, for most projects I feel that a combination of the two "poles" is most helpful.
Partly for the modern use of the language. You will learn a great deal about your own language, English, and learn the basic roots of all the Romance languages and plenty of words in many other languages. You will also, by analysing the roots and perhaps by examining a smattering of Greek into the bargain, be able to decipher the meaning of another five thousand words in twenty languages that you've never heard before -- by deduction from Lation roots, prefixes and suffixes. Just remember to keep your own speech essentially Anglo-Saxon, but you can use your newfound knowledge of English for those occasions when a Saxon word won't do.
The other is the body of great literature that you will use while mastering the language. As a student, your texts will not be the boring invented rubbish you use with most languages (The bird flew into the tree; Johnny threw his ball.) but the actual literature of ancient Rome and of most civilised discourse until modern times. And let me tell you, that process can teach you a great deal about life, death and love, war and friendship, politics and law, and many other topics besides. The reason is just that from so far back, only the best literature is preserved, and you get to start on it immediately.
With someone, sure. In a formal context (say, the news) about someone, sure. (Although this is only in Europe, in the US they use titles for politicians and just last name for everybody else, hence Senator Obama, but just Gates). But the point is, he was just talking about Gates, not to him or about him in a formal context. To be clear, he evidently did not think of his context as formal.
In the UK also, this is reserved for politicians (it seems -- I do not know the full rules). Compare: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7492506.stm (Mr Castro)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/africa/7493717.stm (Mann)
Just to give historical context: the gas in question was not known to be poisonous at the time (today we know that really old or young people might die). Politically, it would be the modern equivalent of tear gas or taser (if you could spray taser electrodes).
As another Slashdotter pointed out, the main problem with the site, which one grant won't permanently fix, is that its inherent appeal is not as great as a big modern attraction such as a theme park or similar. Yet the site has great historical and emotional, and even personal value to anyone whose parents or grandparents fought in the war. It is a really crucial site, and as such many people would be interested in keeping it running.
So is it possible to keep the site running on a more long-term basis by volunteer efforts and donations? I realise this grant is something like a donation, but a grant is not really a donation. The site means a lot to many people in the UK (and other places as well); there should be a simple system to donate, or if you live nearby or have a spare weekend, a way of donating your time or even services to keeping the site running and in repair.
What's actually incorrect in his point of view? Nothing. This lack of freedom may be ever so unnoticeable, and ever so convenient, and for a lot of situations, there's nothing wrong with it at all, and sometimes everything (but freedom) right. That still doesn't change his basic argument, which is quite correct, if you look at it dispassionately. It's just that most people value the advantages some proprietary pieces of software and their vendors offer, value them more than the freedom of that software. That doesn't make that a bad or wrong decision (freedom is, after all, not the ultimate object in everything). It's as you say: you value software that just works above software which is free. He values software that is free above all. He is not calling you a dumb slave, merely pointing out the power that companies have over your software, which is probably not a worry at all for you (or for many others), but it's not incorrect either.
-1 Troll. Stallman has always been head of the FSF, and it is today a highly respected organisation, not to mention Stallman is single-handedly responsible for launching free software and writing half of the original GNU.
I like your reasoned arguments ("utter nonsense"). Stallman thinks that proprietary software is ethically wrong and harmful to society. Agree with him or not, he has presented a coherent argument. You have merely presented an ad hominem.
Because I'm sure you (as everyone ought) refer to Mr. Cruise and Ms. Kidman, or Mrs. Spears and Mr. Timberlake (I'm sorry, I may be out of date, Mr. Msgmonkey) and good Ms. Winfrey's show, and the OS that Mr. Torvalds wrote. I'm sure you always debate the merits of Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, as well as Mrs. Clinton when she was still running. To refer to them as any other way would be as insulting and offensive as neglecting the prefixes on Mr. Emeril's or Dr. House's television shows.
I was agreeing with you until you pulled the nationalistic claptrap. 1776 hadn't anything to do with a feudal system, and Britain at the time was a capitalist economy, and the US obviously followed in those footsteps. 1776 was about completely different things -- the question of self-determination, to be blunt.
If he fought in Korea and Vietnam -- not to diminish what he did, but those were not defensive wars -- then he hardly fought for the sustainment of democracy in this country. Veterans of the Revolution, the War of 1812 perhaps, and possibly WWII might claim that distinction.
There is a popular view that anyone who serves in the armed forces is helping uphold democracy and freedom. This is simply not true; only sometimes can it be said to be true. They do not become defenders of their country merely for enlisting, and certainly not for having fought in a high-profile war like Korea or Vietnam.
And I fully expect I'll be modded flamebait for this, given how popular and staunchly held the view is.
Not really. See for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
With the obvious exception of Russia, they're all in the top 8. Because the G8 has always been about economic clout, not necessarily just size. This is why Russia is in there, but not India or Brazil.
The G8+5 countries form a list with a less arbitrary cutoff, but that is irrelevant, because everyone is interested in clout, not size.
andnothingofvaluewaslost
Yes, it's only every mathematics article ever posted on Slashdot that gets 2-3 comments like the GP. We must be up to a few thousand by now.
And please don't forget the BBC. They have an excellent, unintrusive, quick, clean, informative web site too (with pictures despite the URL):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/text_only.stm
This whole fancy algorithm seems to say nothing more than that if people voted based on items of personality abstracted from name, Colin Powell would be the most popular choice. Doubtless if they had instead asked who was the best presidential candidate out of everyone in public office, he would have come up first too. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with parties or hierarchies -- just a ranking based on popularity.
Sadly, it's also pretty moot, as people vote based on names, not personalities. Colin Powell the man and Colin Powell the name are different things (and the same is true for every person in the world).
No, because standards are different in the two countries. You can't use the data directly, in raw form. Obviously they are the source.
I am interested in the violent crime statistic as that's what has the most long-lasting and damaging effects. Precisely why guns are feared.
I've used VNC (TightVNC) heavily a few years ago (before I went completely text-mode) and I can recall that though it was annoying to have a speed lag, it was still perfectly usable, and I used it a lot.
During that time, I was also given access to a Windows box via RDP, from a Windows client. It was on the same pipe, but what struck me was how awfully, awfully slow it was. I could watch the mouse trails crawl across the desktop. Obviously, they may have improved their compression over the past few years.
Getting back to screen though, I think it would be very difficult to argue that any product, from any computing world, even approaches it in terms of features and power. I don't know what you mean by "maintain an entire work session state across several locations", but if you mean accessing a remote session, then sure screen can do that. You can also use the session from multiple locations at once, it has a built-in window manager, it can monitor windows, filter the output or input of windows into pipes, keep and search (vi-style) the scrollback buffer, etc. A lot of its power is admittedly due to the fact that text is inherently more flexible and simple than graphical widgets. You can't, for instance, filter the output of an arbitrary (say, non-modifiable) application in a GUI without a hideous amount of pain and effort (basically by converting it to text). I can access my screen session using just a javascript-enabled browser, for instance (anyterm and ajaxterm).
These are just some reasons I went text-mode. I just found replacements for all the last graphical apps I had been using (firefox->elinks, gaim->irssi/bitlbee) and in a few weeks I was more productive than I had been before.
That's the main reason I use zsh in the first place -- no other shell can do that, and it makes screen usage so much better.
Oh, it's hardstatus wanking, is it? :P
Just kidding, I love it too. My hardstatus shows my next calendar item, latest email from and subject, followed by hostname and current command. On the right is a little elinks-style "led" with one-character status messages (away on irc, screen locked, new irc messages, how many new emails) followed by the date and time. The caption (caption always and hardstatus alwayslastline) above it is then given entirely to the windows, with the current one highlighted.
I prefer the same, but use screen -ROAD (actually screen -ROAD main, to jump to my "main" session). This additionally resizes the terminals and fixes the termcaps, plus of course it's a great mnemonic.