They say that the appalling sequels to Rendevous with Rama... were basically entirely Gentry Lee's doing... the sequels are so bad they can only tarnish the perception of the original...
I, for one, loved the entire series. Rendezvous With Rama is THE classic.
Rama II, Garden and Revealed are different, longer, sometimes ponderous, epic, yet fantastically imaginative. They are not Arthur C Clarke, but they are a cracking good read.
Ironically, I think that if they only had Gentry Lee's name on them (and still got out of the publishing house) then they would now have a greater acceptance. Perhaps the practice of putting a famous author's name on the cover backfires if the the famous author is too greatly worshiped.
1. Create a VM with one Windows licence (perhaps do.NET development)
2. Make copy of VM for my buddy to also work with same Windows Licence...
4. Profit!
Does Vim still default to starting in command mode? I suppose it does. For me, this is the biggest damn problem with it. It's a text editor, it should start in insert mode like every other editor...
To be honest, I also find Vim's shortcuts extremely unintuative.
Ahh, it's so cute to hear such fussing.
vi is not intuitive at all. It is learned. But when you really think about it, isn't all intuition learned?
vi is unique, and therefore intuition learned in other environments is unlikely to help here. There are some notable exceptions to this, like regular expressions. If you've learned regexes elsewhere, that will help you in vi.
However, vi is not trying to be like other editors. It's successfully being many things, powerful, versitile, efficient, but it is not trying to follow the crowd.
99% of editors, Ctrl-end. Vim, G. Sorry, that's retarded.
Hey sorry bud. As it happens, I'm not really going to do anything about it. In fact, I haven't even run a Windows machine for years now. I run Linux. I just thought of my old program and checked the site was still there. It's un-maintained. I expect there are other maintained projects that would be better for you now.
This is a clever thought. You may be right.
Ether was in fact a good scientific model. It attempted to explain certain things that are now explained by gravity and the like. But each of these models give us a fuller understanding, not necessarily a complete or final understanding.
More than one model of the shape and origin of the universe may contribute to a view that helps explain observations and make predictions.
These models are not for "believing in". That would prevent us from considering other possible explanations. Two or more models taken together may in some sense seem to contradict each other. But they may both contribute to a yet-to-be-discovered unifying theory. They may both help to shape better approximations of the state of the universe.
Wouldn't it be a pretty amazing feat to be able to micromanage every single gravitational interaction in the entire universe? In real time?
That's an interesting take. I write software that can do millions of calculations, each bent to my will - [evil laugh] Ha Ha Ha. I don't micro-manage each one, I'm too powerful for that. I build multi-threaded systems, each thread independantly handling it's own situation, sometimes communicating to other threads...
Pretty clever, huh! Would you have thought of that? Or since you've lived with gravity all your life, can you even explain why it works?
I'm sure that one day we'll understand more about what causes masses to attract one another with no apparent contact - I hope I'll see the day. But you've gotta admit, it's amazing stuff.
You are right that a good repository simplifies portability
But if I need to distribute my proprietory software to run on servers configured with various brands of linux, then I have a problem. My software is not part of the repository. I don't have teams testing its installation in a variety of environments.
However, the mono framework is tested like that.
So, while I can't count on much uniformity on the target system, I can count on the uniformity of the mono framework. Hence the virtual machine architecture. Now I don't care whether they are running redhat, suse or ubuntu...
Also, future changes to distributions could break my systems. Mono is better resourced to keep up with all that. So it is easier for me to just target the mono framework... and hope they maintain some backward compatibility.
Delivering mono based software is straightforward.
If the machines have a configured connection to repositories (like with Ubuntu's synaptic package manager), then install mono, and the new software just runs.
In short, the virtual machine architecture simplifies portablity.
I really don't see this happening.
Well it pretty much happened to me.
I was using Redhat 6, 7, and 8 on my desktop and therefore any servers I installed. A couple of years ago I tried Ubuntu and stuck with it. (Admittedly, I'm a little embarrassed that it has now become so fashionable. But that's not a substantial reason to turn away from something that works and is getting much better by the release.)
Now, my kids run Edubuntu, I run Ubuntu, and any mid-size server I install (which is all I do) is Ubuntu also.
Actually, in English, it is called 'football'. That was the point of starting this 'Soccer?' thread.
Now, Americans have a game they play with their hands, which they call, 'football'. I really enjoy American football (or grid-iron as we sometimes call it). It is more of a turn-based strategic game with complex rules and all the physicality of a train-crash. I like it.
But football is a free-flowing game. It has a simplicity and a beauty that gives it unparalleled status as an international team sport.
I for one am pleased to see the American team in the World Cup. They are improving and genuinely competing on the international scene nowadays.
It probably does more for US/international relations than most diplomatic efforts.
You do the distro a dis-service. Ubuntu and Edubuntu benefit from the Debian support. Labelling ubuntu as PC is a cheap shot. I've been running it since before it was famous, and admittedly, I'm a little embarrassed that my attempt to be alternative has become main-stream.
However, this doesn't make the distro any worse. It installs well, and with the repositories provide exceptionally simple upgrade and software installation options.
I used Redhat for a few years before Ubuntu, and I liked that also. But Ubuntu works for home and Edubuntu packages great educational and fun software for kids. It works for my family. If I was setting up systems for a primary school, I would have be comfortable with the Edubuntu option. Nothing against any other distro, but why knock Ubuntu as PC or suggest that it has anything to do with kowtowing to minorities? Is there any logic basis to those comments?
If the comment is not about the new motherboard chipset, that comment at least should not be modded 'insightful', and in many cases, ought to be modded offtopic of flamebait.
Ok, but some posts in a motherboard chipset discussion may be (Score:5 Funny). Off topic comments sometimes work and make slashdot the place it is. Flame sometimes works and adds spice to the thread. I'm not talking about the personal stuff, but the tongue-in-cheek side-swipes at KDE/Java/Dell/Reps/Dems... are part of the character of this site. I don't know if the Taco is entirely happy about that, but it has become more than his blog now.
If all discussions were on topic, I think I'd end up going somewhere else for my tech talk.
Slashdot Mirror
They say that the appalling sequels to Rendevous with Rama... were basically entirely Gentry Lee's doing... the sequels are so bad they can only tarnish the perception of the original...
I, for one, loved the entire series. Rendezvous With Rama is THE classic.
Rama II, Garden and Revealed are different, longer, sometimes ponderous, epic, yet fantastically imaginative. They are not Arthur C Clarke, but they are a cracking good read.
Ironically, I think that if they only had Gentry Lee's name on them (and still got out of the publishing house) then they would now have a greater acceptance. Perhaps the practice of putting a famous author's name on the cover backfires if the the famous author is too greatly worshiped.
I like that better than TFA. I think that's what a good proportion of us really think... Fuck the Article!
Let he who has never violated copyright cast the first post.
Oh, too late.
Every now and then, put <p> between the sentences.
Like that, see? Then your post won't look like the fucking rosetta stone.
1. Create a VM with one Windows licence (perhaps do .NET development)
2. Make copy of VM for my buddy to also work with same Windows Licence ...
4. Profit!
Does Vim still default to starting in command mode? I suppose it does. For me, this is the biggest damn problem with it. It's a text editor, it should start in insert mode like every other editor...
To be honest, I also find Vim's shortcuts extremely unintuative.
Ahh, it's so cute to hear such fussing.
vi is not intuitive at all. It is learned. But when you really think about it, isn't all intuition learned?
vi is unique, and therefore intuition learned in other environments is unlikely to help here. There are some notable exceptions to this, like regular expressions. If you've learned regexes elsewhere, that will help you in vi.
However, vi is not trying to be like other editors. It's successfully being many things, powerful, versitile, efficient, but it is not trying to follow the crowd.
99% of editors, Ctrl-end. Vim, G. Sorry, that's retarded.
No, that's learned.
Ha ha, that has got to be one of the most desperately rushed first-posts I've seen for a while.
Hey sorry bud. As it happens, I'm not really going to do anything about it. In fact, I haven't even run a Windows machine for years now. I run Linux. I just thought of my old program and checked the site was still there. It's un-maintained. I expect there are other maintained projects that would be better for you now.
I started on the Apple ][ with Robot Wars. I loved programming those robots so much, that I later wrote my own port of it for Windows. I still have it out there for free with it's own BotBasic language. It still gets some hits and positive comments from punters.
This is a clever thought. You may be right. Ether was in fact a good scientific model. It attempted to explain certain things that are now explained by gravity and the like. But each of these models give us a fuller understanding, not necessarily a complete or final understanding.
Are you evangelizing?
A scientific model doesn't need to be "right" to be useful.
For example, light can be modeled as particles or waves. Actually, neither may be an entirely acurate description of light, but both theories may make useful predictions. They both describe light in very good (if not complete) ways.
More than one model of the shape and origin of the universe may contribute to a view that helps explain observations and make predictions.
These models are not for "believing in". That would prevent us from considering other possible explanations. Two or more models taken together may in some sense seem to contradict each other. But they may both contribute to a yet-to-be-discovered unifying theory. They may both help to shape better approximations of the state of the universe.
Wouldn't it be a pretty amazing feat to be able to micromanage every single gravitational interaction in the entire universe? In real time?
That's an interesting take. I write software that can do millions of calculations, each bent to my will - [evil laugh] Ha Ha Ha. I don't micro-manage each one, I'm too powerful for that. I build multi-threaded systems, each thread independantly handling it's own situation, sometimes communicating to other threads...
Now think what the proper God could do.
You miss the point! Gravity is God's will.
Pretty clever, huh! Would you have thought of that? Or since you've lived with gravity all your life, can you even explain why it works?
I'm sure that one day we'll understand more about what causes masses to attract one another with no apparent contact - I hope I'll see the day. But you've gotta admit, it's amazing stuff.
You are right that a good repository simplifies portability
But if I need to distribute my proprietory software to run on servers configured with various brands of linux, then I have a problem. My software is not part of the repository. I don't have teams testing its installation in a variety of environments.
However, the mono framework is tested like that.
So, while I can't count on much uniformity on the target system, I can count on the uniformity of the mono framework. Hence the virtual machine architecture. Now I don't care whether they are running redhat, suse or ubuntu...
Also, future changes to distributions could break my systems. Mono is better resourced to keep up with all that. So it is easier for me to just target the mono framework... and hope they maintain some backward compatibility.
Yes, you are right about Java. It's more mature, and a better example of a portable VM... but it is not open-source.
...Although you can target open source platforms - that is you can install Java software on a Linux server or PC.
Delivering mono based software is straightforward. If the machines have a configured connection to repositories (like with Ubuntu's synaptic package manager), then install mono, and the new software just runs. In short, the virtual machine architecture simplifies portablity.
I really don't see this happening.
Well it pretty much happened to me.
I was using Redhat 6, 7, and 8 on my desktop and therefore any servers I installed. A couple of years ago I tried Ubuntu and stuck with it. (Admittedly, I'm a little embarrassed that it has now become so fashionable. But that's not a substantial reason to turn away from something that works and is getting much better by the release.)
Now, my kids run Edubuntu, I run Ubuntu, and any mid-size server I install (which is all I do) is Ubuntu also.
Actually, some rugby enthusiasts use the word 'soccer', perhaps as a way of saying, I'm not with this 'football' crowd.
(I'm from New Zealand where 'football' means rugby. But I now live in England and play football.)
I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of British call the game 'football', not 'soccer'.
Actually, in English, it is called 'football'. That was the point of starting this 'Soccer?' thread.
Now, Americans have a game they play with their hands, which they call, 'football'. I really enjoy American football (or grid-iron as we sometimes call it). It is more of a turn-based strategic game with complex rules and all the physicality of a train-crash. I like it.
But football is a free-flowing game. It has a simplicity and a beauty that gives it unparalleled status as an international team sport.
I for one am pleased to see the American team in the World Cup. They are improving and genuinely competing on the international scene nowadays.
It probably does more for US/international relations than most diplomatic efforts.
I hadn't noticed a soccer event. Whatever 'soccer' is, it was bad timing to clash with the Football World Cup!
Then which of geckos, termites or moss have you put below us?
You do the distro a dis-service. Ubuntu and Edubuntu benefit from the Debian support. Labelling ubuntu as PC is a cheap shot. I've been running it since before it was famous, and admittedly, I'm a little embarrassed that my attempt to be alternative has become main-stream.
However, this doesn't make the distro any worse. It installs well, and with the repositories provide exceptionally simple upgrade and software installation options.
I used Redhat for a few years before Ubuntu, and I liked that also. But Ubuntu works for home and Edubuntu packages great educational and fun software for kids. It works for my family. If I was setting up systems for a primary school, I would have be comfortable with the Edubuntu option. Nothing against any other distro, but why knock Ubuntu as PC or suggest that it has anything to do with kowtowing to minorities? Is there any logic basis to those comments?
I run edubuntu for my 4 year old and my 2 year old. No problems, lots of graphics fun and maths games etc..
No virus or security worries.
And the license is a thing of beauty.
If the comment is not about the new motherboard chipset, that comment at least should not be modded 'insightful', and in many cases, ought to be modded offtopic of flamebait.
Ok, but some posts in a motherboard chipset discussion may be (Score:5 Funny). Off topic comments sometimes work and make slashdot the place it is. Flame sometimes works and adds spice to the thread. I'm not talking about the personal stuff, but the tongue-in-cheek side-swipes at KDE/Java/Dell/Reps/Dems... are part of the character of this site. I don't know if the Taco is entirely happy about that, but it has become more than his blog now.
If all discussions were on topic, I think I'd end up going somewhere else for my tech talk.