Buh. This caller gets at least an A-, probably an A for patience. But he gets like a C+ at best for communication. You aren't going to overcome an understanding gap by talking over people. You have to listen to them work it out and then point out the problems with the analysis. The people are being slow, or unclever, or obstinate, but they're not being given much help to comprehend the problem. If they're honestly looking at 78.12 and assuming that's 78 dollars and 12 cents or whatever, his exhortations won't really overcome that.
Not that he should be expected to have these skills. And customer service types should absolutely have these skills, but it makes a really dull and annoying recording.
The guy should have explained X per Y is X / Y, therefore when you multiply by Y you get X. A few images on a website and them pointing the browser at it would have driven the point home in a way that can't be ignored, if they really wanted to understand. Telling them they can't do math is accurate, but doesn't really help.
The only programmers familiar with multithreading are PC developers? Do you think the concurrent programming on the Playstation 2, for example, are really so different? Of course concurrent hardware programming on game consoles in some form has been standard issue since at least the days of the genesis with its 68k and z80 (iirc), and probably longer than that. Of course the skills of generations ago are fairly different, but I'd say there are plenty of people in the industry familiar with concurrency.
I'd go so far, actually, as to suggest the average Windows developer is poorer at concurrency than the average game programming veteran.
Of course all of this doesn't really contradict your argument that concurrency is not easy and will require adaptation.
Like most sufferers of christianitry (as opposed to real christianity), you demonstrate inability to distinguish between debate of ideas and marginalization of people. Telling people their ideas are unfounded and providing evidence is in the realm of debate. Telling gay people they are "wrong" is not debate, it is intolerance. If you you were clever enough to cloud your true feelings by debating the nature and causes of homosexuality, instead of talking bald facedly about being "wrong because he's gay", then you might have a leg to stand on.
In the genearal case, learn to use dashes. Dashes put words aside, parens whisper. For this kind of usage, the dash often does what you need better than parens.
For the case where parens are appropriate, I just end the paren with:). People are smart enough to figure it out.
You point out (correctly) that signing of roms won't prevent duplication. Then you claim that encrypting the roms _will_ prevent duplication. How, exactly would I be unable to duplicate ecrypted roms? They're just bits.
The key to prevent piracy is to have keys at both ends which are verifiable. The store should use a pre-arranged key the wii can verify, and the wii should use a per-wii key that the store uses to modif the files, whether via signing or encryption does not matter. In this way, the wii will not accept unauthorized content, and authorized content will not be transferrable.
As a fan of homebrew games and console hacking (demos, etc) I sure hope they messed up on some of this.
It's not clear that motherboard manufacturers have a strong interest in proprietary extensions to the BIOS. BIOS vendors do, but board vendors? They probably could have done something in this space if they wanted to, but haven't. I'd say that suggests a lack of motivation.
Hahaha as support staff for Tornado, a development environment for VxWorks by Wind River Systems in the 90s, we saw breakage after breakage from solaris 2.4 to 2.5 to 2.6 to 2.7. The "system api" may be pretty well managed, but the delivered libraries were a total mess.
Well if you propose to adopt the processes of another project in whole or in part, you should probably check that their processes demonstratably produce better results than the processes you propose to replace.
That the patches are understood by multiple people is important. I'm not sure why you feel this practice of weak descriptions implies this is the case, or why this practice is considered to apply specifically to linux. My understanding of TFA did not conveey that to me.
Hyperbole goes over better with a larger sledgehammer: "Roughly 9000% of internet discussion is about software patents" or whatever. I'm sure you could improve on my bad first take. The "article" combines an even worse attempt with a lack of framing context to create a sense of rant or jokey flavor, or amusement.
It fell flat enough that I spent a while trying to figure out if there was some crazy argument about the hugeness of patent databases or something. I think calling it a "joke" is giving it praise it doesn't come close to meriting.
(This is all just side-discussion, not commentary on you.)
Most packages are patched. That is in fact the whole point of rpm and deb packaging solutions. They allow one to patch the code while keeping the original pristine.
The Firefox package in debian is not particularly more patched than other packages. It is not a fork. Apache in debian is not a fork. The Linux kernel in debian is not a fork.
Debian has no plans to fork Firefox, they have just been required by Mozilla to change the name in order to apply the same exact practices that they use with every other package.
You can do that with python. You can do that with most free software programs.
The only major restriction is if you are somehow demonstratably willfully creating confusion and damaging the reputation of a project whose name is trademarked, you are in trouble. Most projects don't have registered trademarks and even your silly modification above would not qualify as malfaesance.
Yeah, and all the other open source projects like Apache and python and so forth take the same stance to protect their images too!
Oh wait, no they don't. In fact, no other free software project has requirements like this, because it flies in the face of the whole idea of free software. So sure, being concerned about the image of your software is reasonable. And taking legal steps to prevent people from using the brand of your software when modifying it is reasonble. But it is contrary to free software, and thus represents a turn by the Mozilla Corp away from the whole idea of free software.
Not that they can't do this, but given the licenses and so on they have chosen for the main body of their code, it makes one wonder if they really have any clue what they're doing.
Nuclear power is a stopgap. Companies involved in nuclear power generation and Uranium sourcing project that peak uranium production will be hit in the 2030s. Different projections put the peak around 2030 to 2036.
Having used vi for some 15 years now, I can say that there is no such confusion. In classic vi setups, the cursor keys just did not work. In modern vi setups, you should use vim. Your mistake was to use a non-vim version of vi in a modern context. In other words, the problem you describe is limited to OpenBSD.
There's really no reason to avoid vim. It's easy to install and runs on whatever platform you happen to be using. I have used it on AmigaDOS, BeOS, NeXTstep, MS-DOS, Win95, WinNT4 and WinXP, FreeBSD, SunOS (and solaris), Linux, and MacOSX. It worked consistently and confidently on every one of these platforms, regardless of the stupidity of the platform. Why would you ever want to use some half-baked BSD-vi reimplementation?
The information would of course remain in Wikipedia, so there's hardly anything wrong with applying a more stringent filter against cruft. Wikipedia is full of the stuff (See List_of_* for a lot of pointless idiocy). Bringing more focus to a project that is in some manner similar to an encyclopedia would be a good new direction to take a new project!
Yes of course in general the performance of silicon moves to the general space. DSPs had a brief fling in general computers but processors adopting SIMD provided most of what the DSPs could offer.
If something like an "AI processor" can really provide that much of a dramatic improvement over generalized silicon, the question becomes what is it about the technology that is so much better? Are there really a number of completely static operations that do not need be flexible that are needed, like the floating point dot product load needed for 3d graphics. Or is this really just a general processor in disguise with a few special features.
3D processing is a good example of a cpu offload system which has not been integrated with the primary CPU, but remained a discrete part, because the work it does is highly regularlized and can be hard-implemented in efficient silicon designs. Some DSP type applications such as the "softmodem" on the early multimedia Macintoshes were not really huge repeatable loads, and were easily shifted to the general processor.
If the demand for higher performing AI systems is really there (it seems plausible as gaming systems can handle large number of items due to increased CPU and RAM), then the special custom card will stay or go depending upon the true nature of the core of the workload, and any need for flexibility by developers of relevant software.
Mozilla is tri-licensed, so your comments are wide of the mark.
The MPL itself was a new work, a creation. It was perhaps foolhardy in some respects, but it is difficult to presume that a group crafting a license will perceive the full longterm results of their creation. The CDDL was created years later with full understanding of the relevant problems. Moreover, the CDDL was specifically created to be used with the OpenSolaris release, which is a type of open UNIX release. The preeminent open unix implementation at this time is under the GPL. As a result, choosing to release OpenSolaris under the newly written, but long understood (see your point about the MPL) CDDL makes it clear that preventing source interoperability was a goal.
To sum up: Mozilla was in a very different position, the code is trilicened to be compatible. Some new MPL works may also be deliberately incompatible with GPL code, but may also not be in a field where there is an established GPL work with which they are deliberately incompatible. The Sun actions with the CDDL were the worst of this continuum, being deliberately incompatible when there is an obvious existing relevant work with which it would benefit everyone to be compatible, and moreover they minted a new license in text (though not substantially in function) which was aimed to create this incompatibility.
Of course, the lack of an official body does not give me the power to define terms. However, dictionaries tend to lag common usage by a significant margin. Acronyms have been rapidly on the rise, as well as these "initialisms". The common term across various regions of English, in various circles across multiple decades has universally been "acronym". This has been true New York City; it has been true in rural New York; it has been true in London; it has been true in Finland; it has been true on various internet forums; it has been true in Nuremberg; it has been true in the software industry; it has been true in the criminal justice world; it has been true in San Francisco; it has been true among young people; it has been true among in nursing homes; it has been true on farms; it has been true on public transportation systems. Acronym is the real English usage.
Your need to check dictionaries is leading you astray.
Slashdot Mirror
Buh. This caller gets at least an A-, probably an A for patience. But he gets like a C+ at best for communication. You aren't going to overcome an understanding gap by talking over people. You have to listen to them work it out and then point out the problems with the analysis. The people are being slow, or unclever, or obstinate, but they're not being given much help to comprehend the problem. If they're honestly looking at 78.12 and assuming that's 78 dollars and 12 cents or whatever, his exhortations won't really overcome that.
Not that he should be expected to have these skills. And customer service types should absolutely have these skills, but it makes a really dull and annoying recording.
The guy should have explained X per Y is X / Y, therefore when you multiply by Y you get X. A few images on a website and them pointing the browser at it would have driven the point home in a way that can't be ignored, if they really wanted to understand. Telling them they can't do math is accurate, but doesn't really help.
The only programmers familiar with multithreading are PC developers? Do you think the concurrent programming on the Playstation 2, for example, are really so different? Of course concurrent hardware programming on game consoles in some form has been standard issue since at least the days of the genesis with its 68k and z80 (iirc), and probably longer than that. Of course the skills of generations ago are fairly different, but I'd say there are plenty of people in the industry familiar with concurrency.
I'd go so far, actually, as to suggest the average Windows developer is poorer at concurrency than the average game programming veteran.
Of course all of this doesn't really contradict your argument that concurrency is not easy and will require adaptation.
Like most sufferers of christianitry (as opposed to real christianity), you demonstrate inability to distinguish between debate of ideas and marginalization of people. Telling people their ideas are unfounded and providing evidence is in the realm of debate. Telling gay people they are "wrong" is not debate, it is intolerance. If you you were clever enough to cloud your true feelings by debating the nature and causes of homosexuality, instead of talking bald facedly about being "wrong because he's gay", then you might have a leg to stand on.
In the genearal case, learn to use dashes. Dashes put words aside, parens whisper. For this kind of usage, the dash often does what you need better than parens.
:). People are smart enough to figure it out.
For the case where parens are appropriate, I just end the paren with
In a sane society, posession is not the crime, but creation. Is it not so in canada?
You point out (correctly) that signing of roms won't prevent duplication. Then you claim that encrypting the roms _will_ prevent duplication. How, exactly would I be unable to duplicate ecrypted roms? They're just bits.
The key to prevent piracy is to have keys at both ends which are verifiable. The store should use a pre-arranged key the wii can verify, and the wii should use a per-wii key that the store uses to modif the files, whether via signing or encryption does not matter. In this way, the wii will not accept unauthorized content, and authorized content will not be transferrable.
As a fan of homebrew games and console hacking (demos, etc) I sure hope they messed up on some of this.
How exactly does this help with false positives?
Noncheater contacts XYZ and says "what is this? I am not cheating. what can I do to prove it?"
Cheater contacts XYZ and says "what is this? I am not cheating. what can I do to prove it?"
It's not clear that motherboard manufacturers have a strong interest in proprietary extensions to the BIOS. BIOS vendors do, but board vendors? They probably could have done something in this space if they wanted to, but haven't. I'd say that suggests a lack of motivation.
Hahaha as support staff for Tornado, a development environment for VxWorks by Wind River Systems in the 90s, we saw breakage after breakage from solaris 2.4 to 2.5 to 2.6 to 2.7. The "system api" may be pretty well managed, but the delivered libraries were a total mess.
Well if you propose to adopt the processes of another project in whole or in part, you should probably check that their processes demonstratably produce better results than the processes you propose to replace.
That the patches are understood by multiple people is important. I'm not sure why you feel this practice of weak descriptions implies this is the case, or why this practice is considered to apply specifically to linux. My understanding of TFA did not conveey that to me.
Hyperbole goes over better with a larger sledgehammer: "Roughly 9000% of internet discussion is about software patents" or whatever. I'm sure you could improve on my bad first take. The "article" combines an even worse attempt with a lack of framing context to create a sense of rant or jokey flavor, or amusement.
It fell flat enough that I spent a while trying to figure out if there was some crazy argument about the hugeness of patent databases or something. I think calling it a "joke" is giving it praise it doesn't come close to meriting.
(This is all just side-discussion, not commentary on you.)
Most packages are patched. That is in fact the whole point of rpm and deb packaging solutions. They allow one to patch the code while keeping the original pristine.
The Firefox package in debian is not particularly more patched than other packages. It is not a fork. Apache in debian is not a fork. The Linux kernel in debian is not a fork.
Debian has no plans to fork Firefox, they have just been required by Mozilla to change the name in order to apply the same exact practices that they use with every other package.
You can do that with python. You can do that with most free software programs.
The only major restriction is if you are somehow demonstratably willfully creating confusion and damaging the reputation of a project whose name is trademarked, you are in trouble. Most projects don't have registered trademarks and even your silly modification above would not qualify as malfaesance.
So yes, Mozilla is a special case.
Yeah, and all the other open source projects like Apache and python and so forth take the same stance to protect their images too!
Oh wait, no they don't. In fact, no other free software project has requirements like this, because it flies in the face of the whole idea of free software. So sure, being concerned about the image of your software is reasonable. And taking legal steps to prevent people from using the brand of your software when modifying it is reasonble. But it is contrary to free software, and thus represents a turn by the Mozilla Corp away from the whole idea of free software.
Not that they can't do this, but given the licenses and so on they have chosen for the main body of their code, it makes one wonder if they really have any clue what they're doing.
Nuclear power is a stopgap. Companies involved in nuclear power generation and Uranium sourcing project that peak uranium production will be hit in the 2030s. Different projections put the peak around 2030 to 2036.
The logo has non-free copyright terms, which violates the DFSG, and thus cannot be included in Debian.
If my Matrox G550 Can drive 1920x1080 just fine, surely these modern cards can manage it?
The cost of my card was around 50 bucks.
> So why don't they move ahead and tell us how it works out? Maybe the world will follow.
Right, they did. Now they are telling us that it worked out really well, and the rest of us should follow along for huge power savings.
Having used vi for some 15 years now, I can say that there is no such confusion. In classic vi setups, the cursor keys just did not work. In modern vi setups, you should use vim. Your mistake was to use a non-vim version of vi in a modern context. In other words, the problem you describe is limited to OpenBSD.
There's really no reason to avoid vim. It's easy to install and runs on whatever platform you happen to be using. I have used it on AmigaDOS, BeOS, NeXTstep, MS-DOS, Win95, WinNT4 and WinXP, FreeBSD, SunOS (and solaris), Linux, and MacOSX. It worked consistently and confidently on every one of these platforms, regardless of the stupidity of the platform. Why would you ever want to use some half-baked BSD-vi reimplementation?
The information would of course remain in Wikipedia, so there's hardly anything wrong with applying a more stringent filter against cruft. Wikipedia is full of the stuff (See List_of_* for a lot of pointless idiocy). Bringing more focus to a project that is in some manner similar to an encyclopedia would be a good new direction to take a new project!
Let us know when the license becomes unencumbered of requirements or legal risk, like normal Python.
Iron Python is a dangerous beast. Consult your lawyers.
Yes of course in general the performance of silicon moves to the general space. DSPs had a brief fling in general computers but processors adopting SIMD provided most of what the DSPs could offer.
If something like an "AI processor" can really provide that much of a dramatic improvement over generalized silicon, the question becomes what is it about the technology that is so much better? Are there really a number of completely static operations that do not need be flexible that are needed, like the floating point dot product load needed for 3d graphics. Or is this really just a general processor in disguise with a few special features.
3D processing is a good example of a cpu offload system which has not been integrated with the primary CPU, but remained a discrete part, because the work it does is highly regularlized and can be hard-implemented in efficient silicon designs. Some DSP type applications such as the "softmodem" on the early multimedia Macintoshes were not really huge repeatable loads, and were easily shifted to the general processor.
If the demand for higher performing AI systems is really there (it seems plausible as gaming systems can handle large number of items due to increased CPU and RAM), then the special custom card will stay or go depending upon the true nature of the core of the workload, and any need for flexibility by developers of relevant software.
ENOATTRIBUTION.
Mozilla is tri-licensed, so your comments are wide of the mark.
The MPL itself was a new work, a creation. It was perhaps foolhardy in some respects, but it is difficult to presume that a group crafting a license will perceive the full longterm results of their creation. The CDDL was created years later with full understanding of the relevant problems. Moreover, the CDDL was specifically created to be used with the OpenSolaris release, which is a type of open UNIX release. The preeminent open unix implementation at this time is under the GPL. As a result, choosing to release OpenSolaris under the newly written, but long understood (see your point about the MPL) CDDL makes it clear that preventing source interoperability was a goal.
To sum up: Mozilla was in a very different position, the code is trilicened to be compatible. Some new MPL works may also be deliberately incompatible with GPL code, but may also not be in a field where there is an established GPL work with which they are deliberately incompatible. The Sun actions with the CDDL were the worst of this continuum, being deliberately incompatible when there is an obvious existing relevant work with which it would benefit everyone to be compatible, and moreover they minted a new license in text (though not substantially in function) which was aimed to create this incompatibility.
Of course, the lack of an official body does not give me the power to define terms. However, dictionaries tend to lag common usage by a significant margin. Acronyms have been rapidly on the rise, as well as these "initialisms". The common term across various regions of English, in various circles across multiple decades has universally been "acronym". This has been true New York City; it has been true in rural New York; it has been true in London; it has been true in Finland; it has been true on various internet forums; it has been true in Nuremberg; it has been true in the software industry; it has been true in the criminal justice world; it has been true in San Francisco; it has been true among young people; it has been true among in nursing homes; it has been true on farms; it has been true on public transportation systems. Acronym is the real English usage.
Your need to check dictionaries is leading you astray.