I think the GP points out rightly that it isn't 'charity' when the intention is not noble... read PR.
Oh come on.
Now granted, this is MicroSoft we're talking about, an entity that is evil to the core.
But by that definition, there is no charity, ever. It's ridiculous. People do things for reasons, corporations do things for reasons too. Just because they have a motive doesn't make it any less charity.
You would still have all the normal routing delays, so this would probably jack your ping time to slashdot up around 1000ms. It's the same sort of issue DirecWay systems have in that regard. That kind of latency is instant death if you're playing counterstrike or the like, of course, but for downloading email, web pages, even doing ftp or whatever it's still really not a big deal. It's probably enough to make VOIP annoying, but not unusable.
There are some alternatives with lower ping, but they all have problems. You could use an array of 10-12 low earth orbit satellites, for instance, so that you have have one in range at all times. I'm not sure how that would compare on expenses - the satellites would certainly be cheaper, as they wouldn't need the extra-powerful antennas, but probably the whole array would add up to be considerably more expensive. Launching costs would pose the same sort of pattern - cheaper launches perhaps, but probably not by a factor of 10-12. So it would be more expensive. You'd have much better latency, but you might also introduce a lot more complexity in targetting the moving objects with your signals.
In the end, it's probably not worth it. The intention here is clearly to give service to those in rural areas that don't have alternatives, and to provide emergency communication channels that are immune to terrestrial disasters, and this should do that admirably. Not being able to play counterstrike on it probably doesn't really affect it's core utility.
Feel free to mention any other sites, tricks, or tips you have. I can see myself trying to catch up on all the Timothy Zahn and L. Neil Smith titles I've missed since I got tired of the hassle of dealing with an every-larger stack of papers as I move around the world.
That's really my biggest problem with books - I LOVE the things, not just as collections of words, but the texture, the smell, the weight of paper... but it's that weight that kills it. I've moved a lot over the past 10 years, and it gets so old trying to transport or store box after box of books, not to mention coming back for stored boxes after 5 years or so to find them mostly destroyed by mold and insectoid critters anyway.
The Mach kernel was initially hosted on BSD, and certainly looked to it for specifications and userland and so forth, but the actual kernel was new code as I understand it. Certainly it's hard to imagine how or why one would rewrite a monolithic kernel to produce a microkernel. This account would seem to make much more sense.
Wouldn't the majority of home installations of UNIX based systems be Macs running OS X? I have no specific stats, just asking if anyone does.
There are two legitimate meanings of the word, unfortunately - genetic Unix and Unix(tm), and many OSs that are one or the other.
Macs running OS10 are arguably genetic Unix (only arguably, because while they build on a BSD userland, and BSD is genetic Unix, the XNU kernel is not a descendent of any Unix system.)
The other meaning, Unix(tm), is the only meaning with legal force, however, and the Unix trademark is owned by the Open Group. Many systems, some genetic Unix and some not, are Unix(tm) by virtue of passing an array of spec compatibility tests. Macs are definately not Unix(tm), and neither is BSD for that matter.
If we assume you meant to include both sets as 'Unix,' and give Mac OS10 the benefit of the doubt, then yes, I would say you're correct. If we don't include it, but only systems that have a genetic-Unix kernel or are Unix(tm), then my guess would be one of the BSDs. If we narrow it down to Unix(tm) only, then my guess would be Solaris.
Interestingly, with all this room to fudge around with the question of what exactly 'Unix' means, there still isn't any room at all for a meaning where Darl's monotonously repeated claim that "SCO owns the UNIX operating system" is true. He seems to be working on the principle that if you scream an absurdity, often enough and loudly enough, eventually people will believe it. SCO apparently owns two rather unremarkable Unix(tm) Operating Systems, or at least the rights to license them. They don't own the Unix trademark, and there is no "THE" Unix Operating system, there are a rather large number of distinct Operating Systems, which meet one or both of the definitions of Unix above.
And even if such accounts weren't terminated immediately, making them would still be the wrong answer.
The editors should not allow articles with broken links like that to be posted in the first place. Of course, it's obvious they can't be bothered to do anything but click a post button occasionally, and apparently randomly, so it falls to the readers to take care of it. Don't make a login, don't post the text, don't comment on the article at all, except to note that there's nothing to discuss, since the link doesn't work. And don't submit this kind of trash to begin with, of course.
The rest of your post here actually sounds like you have a brain, but that bit I quoted has to be the most absurdly ignorant statement I've seen all day.
Actually, what i meant was: Gnome is a superb WM, but it's method of handling multiple windows is lacking. No fanboyism from Gnome OR KDE will change that. Expose is superb, and it defines OS X. What other OS can function without a taskbar?
You know, GNOME!=GNU/Linux. I've been using X Workstations for nearly a decade now, and I've NEVER needed a 'taskbar.' Not once. Try getting away from the GNOME/KDE 'windows-alike' paradigms and try some real window managers. WindowMaker for instance. Use multiple root windows, cycle through them by clicking the paper-clip or use the root menu or the task list... you can place different windows on their own screens, yank them back into the one you're working on when necessary, switch roots or yank windows into place with a click or a keystroke... yes it takes a little work to learn a whole new paradigm, but it's well worth it.
Now I'm typing this on a Mac, and I like them, but let's be fair. The reason the Mac needs exposé is because it's lacking basic functions X Window users have had for many, many years.
Just FYI, although I agree with you in general that it's nobody elses business who you're porking, in this case there were a few good reasons why this was an exception.
First off, it all came out because of a civil suit alleging a pattern of sexual predations by the man, using his power as Governor, then later as President, to bed whatever women caught his eye. The allegations were quite serious, and the President sat down on the stand there and perjured himself, then got on national television and looked the camera in the eye and wagged his fingers and scolded the nation... "I. DID. NOT. SLEEP. WITH. THAT. WOMAN." What a wonderful example he set. Not.
And remember, this woman was a white house intern, and he was the president. Under laws he championed, and signed, that makes it automatically sexual harassment, if not rape, because he's in a position of power over her. Other men throughout the country are held to that standard, but Clinton himself is somehow exempt?
Again, I think he really set a very horrible example, in a very public way. Of course the media loved the guy, and they ignored all this and just repeated the formulaic dismissal of it all as people being upset because he had a blowjob over and over, but it was a lot more than that.
You first statement is probably not true, and even if true, still meaningless ethically.
Now, it's possible that B did this as part of a scheme to try and manipulate these events into occuring, of course, in which case that manipulation would be wrong.
But you haven't posited that in your scenario. Only the bare fact that B gave A the weapon. Based on that bare fact and without making any further assumptions, I repeat, B did nothing wrong.
I'm guessing your problem understanding this is coming from the emotional charge our brainwashing^Wschools and media put on firearms, so imagine it another way. B gives A a pencil. A proceeds to kill C, using the pencil. Has B done anything wrong?
No, it's still nonsensical, and it sounds like you're falling for the same mushy thinking. B handed A the weapon that A eventually used to murder C. A is a murderer. B did nothing wrong.
Clinton lied about a lot of stuff, the particular one you're talking about, was in an attempt to evade a lawsuit he was facing over a pattern of sexual harrassment and rape he engaged in for years - so I'd hardly say it was harmless.
Beyond that, of course, he harmed people by setting a bad example, which was exactly the point being made. Silly as it is, when the President lies a lot of people start thinking lying is ok.
The fact that Bush gets away with lying even more, and killing even more, than Clinton did, doesn't absolve Clinton. Neither do Clintons misdeeds excuse Bushes. But the point, again, is the effect on the broader society when people in high places engage in such shameful, but shameless, dishonesties... and get away with it over and over.
but if IBM cannot redistribute derivative products from the SysV code, then i suppose they couldn't distribute things like file systems that were originally implemented for SysV. so in some respect it is possible that SCO has a leg to stand on. i suppose IBM could easily argue that the products they put into the linux kernel were based on something other than products in the SysV code. but i am not an expert, by any means, so maybe others should weigh in.
Sounds reasonable on its face, but there are several things wrong with this tack. First, the file system in question didn't come from AIX to Linux, rather it came from OS/2 to both Linux and AIX. But beyond that, the contracts involved clearly put IBM in the clear doing whatever it wants with *any* code they develop themselves, whether it's developed for AIX or not.
you dont have to be the one doing the wrong thing to do something wrong
Yes, you do. If you aren't doing something wrong, you aren't doing something wrong. QED.
The parent post is a great example of exactly the kind of mush-headed thinking that's going to completely destroy western civilisation. The rot is already quite advanced, probably irreversible I'm afraid.
I think the point, which you seem to be intent on missing here, is that that this is a game chock full of violence, from beginning to end, and I mean blood and gore splattering on you brutal graphic violence, and rated M for that. But when a titty is found, suddenly M isn't enough?
Now sure, parents should (and all too often don't) pay attention to what their children are exposed to. But any parent that is ok with their kids being exposed to the level of violence GTASA is known for, but suddenly up in arms because a TITTY snuck into the game, has some serious problems.
This is a catfish. A bottomfeeder. It survives by sucking up the wastes that acrete on the floor of its chosen body of water.
I wouldn't eat it. Well, being a pragmatist, I would actually. If I were the only chance for a meal I had all week. Which, given the current state of the US labour market isn't really so awfully far from the truth. But I digress.
One thing Ariel Sharon and Usama bin Laden agree on is that G-d doesn't want you eating things that eat offal. And, as insane as both of them seem to yours truly, I have to say on this one issue they both seem pretty sane to me. As opposed to every substantial issue, where they come off as a pair of utter loons in my eyes, but never mind all that, let's suppose there is a G-d, and he loves you - would he want you to eat a fish that lives on prematurely harvested coprolites?
There is no word with an unvoiced 's' in that position. There is no distinction that needs to be preserved. And it's horribly bad form, in English, to use a zed outside the handful of cases where it is actually necessary to distinguish a voiced from an unvoiced 's.'
English spelling is not at all arbitrary. If you know Middle English it makes perfect sense, and if you have a passing acquaintance with early modern English 98% of it will still make sense.
Yes, knight is spelled the way it is because it used to be pronounced that way and because that spelling differentiates it from another word which is now pronounced the same but has a very different meaning.
English spelling is very conservative, and properly so because that allows us to preserve distinctions that a phonetic writing system would destroy. English spelling has followed this path from VERY early times, and it's far from the only language to do that.
'America' didn't obsess over spelling in post-colonial times, however certain sections of New England, particularly a certain Mr. Webster, did. He deliberately changed many well-established conventions in an attempt to create a distinctively yankee literary language. One which much of the country accepted only at bayonette point, and noticeable portions rejected even then.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on.
Now granted, this is MicroSoft we're talking about, an entity that is evil to the core.
But by that definition, there is no charity, ever. It's ridiculous. People do things for reasons, corporations do things for reasons too. Just because they have a motive doesn't make it any less charity.
You would still have all the normal routing delays, so this would probably jack your ping time to slashdot up around 1000ms. It's the same sort of issue DirecWay systems have in that regard. That kind of latency is instant death if you're playing counterstrike or the like, of course, but for downloading email, web pages, even doing ftp or whatever it's still really not a big deal. It's probably enough to make VOIP annoying, but not unusable.
There are some alternatives with lower ping, but they all have problems. You could use an array of 10-12 low earth orbit satellites, for instance, so that you have have one in range at all times. I'm not sure how that would compare on expenses - the satellites would certainly be cheaper, as they wouldn't need the extra-powerful antennas, but probably the whole array would add up to be considerably more expensive. Launching costs would pose the same sort of pattern - cheaper launches perhaps, but probably not by a factor of 10-12. So it would be more expensive. You'd have much better latency, but you might also introduce a lot more complexity in targetting the moving objects with your signals.
In the end, it's probably not worth it. The intention here is clearly to give service to those in rural areas that don't have alternatives, and to provide emergency communication channels that are immune to terrestrial disasters, and this should do that admirably. Not being able to play counterstrike on it probably doesn't really affect it's core utility.
This absolutely rocks man, thanks for the tip.
Feel free to mention any other sites, tricks, or tips you have. I can see myself trying to catch up on all the Timothy Zahn and L. Neil Smith titles I've missed since I got tired of the hassle of dealing with an every-larger stack of papers as I move around the world.
That's really my biggest problem with books - I LOVE the things, not just as collections of words, but the texture, the smell, the weight of paper... but it's that weight that kills it. I've moved a lot over the past 10 years, and it gets so old trying to transport or store box after box of books, not to mention coming back for stored boxes after 5 years or so to find them mostly destroyed by mold and insectoid critters anyway.
The Mach kernel was initially hosted on BSD, and certainly looked to it for specifications and userland and so forth, but the actual kernel was new code as I understand it. Certainly it's hard to imagine how or why one would rewrite a monolithic kernel to produce a microkernel. This account would seem to make much more sense.
There are two legitimate meanings of the word, unfortunately - genetic Unix and Unix(tm), and many OSs that are one or the other.
Macs running OS10 are arguably genetic Unix (only arguably, because while they build on a BSD userland, and BSD is genetic Unix, the XNU kernel is not a descendent of any Unix system.)
The other meaning, Unix(tm), is the only meaning with legal force, however, and the Unix trademark is owned by the Open Group. Many systems, some genetic Unix and some not, are Unix(tm) by virtue of passing an array of spec compatibility tests. Macs are definately not Unix(tm), and neither is BSD for that matter.
If we assume you meant to include both sets as 'Unix,' and give Mac OS10 the benefit of the doubt, then yes, I would say you're correct. If we don't include it, but only systems that have a genetic-Unix kernel or are Unix(tm), then my guess would be one of the BSDs. If we narrow it down to Unix(tm) only, then my guess would be Solaris.
Interestingly, with all this room to fudge around with the question of what exactly 'Unix' means, there still isn't any room at all for a meaning where Darl's monotonously repeated claim that "SCO owns the UNIX operating system" is true. He seems to be working on the principle that if you scream an absurdity, often enough and loudly enough, eventually people will believe it. SCO apparently owns two rather unremarkable Unix(tm) Operating Systems, or at least the rights to license them. They don't own the Unix trademark, and there is no "THE" Unix Operating system, there are a rather large number of distinct Operating Systems, which meet one or both of the definitions of Unix above.
And even if such accounts weren't terminated immediately, making them would still be the wrong answer.
The editors should not allow articles with broken links like that to be posted in the first place. Of course, it's obvious they can't be bothered to do anything but click a post button occasionally, and apparently randomly, so it falls to the readers to take care of it. Don't make a login, don't post the text, don't comment on the article at all, except to note that there's nothing to discuss, since the link doesn't work. And don't submit this kind of trash to begin with, of course.
The rest of your post here actually sounds like you have a brain, but that bit I quoted has to be the most absurdly ignorant statement I've seen all day.
You know, GNOME!=GNU/Linux. I've been using X Workstations for nearly a decade now, and I've NEVER needed a 'taskbar.' Not once. Try getting away from the GNOME/KDE 'windows-alike' paradigms and try some real window managers. WindowMaker for instance. Use multiple root windows, cycle through them by clicking the paper-clip or use the root menu or the task list... you can place different windows on their own screens, yank them back into the one you're working on when necessary, switch roots or yank windows into place with a click or a keystroke... yes it takes a little work to learn a whole new paradigm, but it's well worth it.
Now I'm typing this on a Mac, and I like them, but let's be fair. The reason the Mac needs exposé is because it's lacking basic functions X Window users have had for many, many years.
First off why would you assume you need KDE? Run oh say ICEWM and stick the web browser, email, and office apps on the menu and it's good to go.
And second, yes, I've got hardware that old, and it runs KDE fairly well, with the animations and extraneous fluff turned off.
Interesting. I've seen so far Italy, Hungary, France, Canada, and the US. Not a single attempt from Korea.
Just FYI, although I agree with you in general that it's nobody elses business who you're porking, in this case there were a few good reasons why this was an exception.
First off, it all came out because of a civil suit alleging a pattern of sexual predations by the man, using his power as Governor, then later as President, to bed whatever women caught his eye. The allegations were quite serious, and the President sat down on the stand there and perjured himself, then got on national television and looked the camera in the eye and wagged his fingers and scolded the nation... "I. DID. NOT. SLEEP. WITH. THAT. WOMAN." What a wonderful example he set. Not.
And remember, this woman was a white house intern, and he was the president. Under laws he championed, and signed, that makes it automatically sexual harassment, if not rape, because he's in a position of power over her. Other men throughout the country are held to that standard, but Clinton himself is somehow exempt?
Again, I think he really set a very horrible example, in a very public way. Of course the media loved the guy, and they ignored all this and just repeated the formulaic dismissal of it all as people being upset because he had a blowjob over and over, but it was a lot more than that.
You first statement is probably not true, and even if true, still meaningless ethically.
Now, it's possible that B did this as part of a scheme to try and manipulate these events into occuring, of course, in which case that manipulation would be wrong.
But you haven't posited that in your scenario. Only the bare fact that B gave A the weapon. Based on that bare fact and without making any further assumptions, I repeat, B did nothing wrong.
I'm guessing your problem understanding this is coming from the emotional charge our brainwashing^Wschools and media put on firearms, so imagine it another way. B gives A a pencil. A proceeds to kill C, using the pencil. Has B done anything wrong?
No, it's still nonsensical, and it sounds like you're falling for the same mushy thinking. B handed A the weapon that A eventually used to murder C. A is a murderer. B did nothing wrong.
Clinton lied about a lot of stuff, the particular one you're talking about, was in an attempt to evade a lawsuit he was facing over a pattern of sexual harrassment and rape he engaged in for years - so I'd hardly say it was harmless.
Beyond that, of course, he harmed people by setting a bad example, which was exactly the point being made. Silly as it is, when the President lies a lot of people start thinking lying is ok.
The fact that Bush gets away with lying even more, and killing even more, than Clinton did, doesn't absolve Clinton. Neither do Clintons misdeeds excuse Bushes. But the point, again, is the effect on the broader society when people in high places engage in such shameful, but shameless, dishonesties... and get away with it over and over.
Sounds reasonable on its face, but there are several things wrong with this tack. First, the file system in question didn't come from AIX to Linux, rather it came from OS/2 to both Linux and AIX. But beyond that, the contracts involved clearly put IBM in the clear doing whatever it wants with *any* code they develop themselves, whether it's developed for AIX or not.
Yes, you do. If you aren't doing something wrong, you aren't doing something wrong. QED.
The parent post is a great example of exactly the kind of mush-headed thinking that's going to completely destroy western civilisation. The rot is already quite advanced, probably irreversible I'm afraid.
Yes. Definately.
I think the point, which you seem to be intent on missing here, is that that this is a game chock full of violence, from beginning to end, and I mean blood and gore splattering on you brutal graphic violence, and rated M for that. But when a titty is found, suddenly M isn't enough?
Now sure, parents should (and all too often don't) pay attention to what their children are exposed to. But any parent that is ok with their kids being exposed to the level of violence GTASA is known for, but suddenly up in arms because a TITTY snuck into the game, has some serious problems.
Uhh no.
MOST UCE is spam, but not all.
Spam is UBE - Unsolicited Bulk Email.
Any email that is not Unsolicited, and/or not Bulk, is not spam. Whether it's commercial or not doesn't matter either way.
No, actually, that's saying very little. About as little as you can say and still have opened your mouth, I'm afraid.
Don't use it.
If I want the bloody link in a new window I'll right click and choose 'open in a new window' thanks.
This is a catfish. A bottomfeeder. It survives by sucking up the wastes that acrete on the floor of its chosen body of water.
I wouldn't eat it. Well, being a pragmatist, I would actually. If I were the only chance for a meal I had all week. Which, given the current state of the US labour market isn't really so awfully far from the truth. But I digress.
One thing Ariel Sharon and Usama bin Laden agree on is that G-d doesn't want you eating things that eat offal. And, as insane as both of them seem to yours truly, I have to say on this one issue they both seem pretty sane to me. As opposed to every substantial issue, where they come off as a pair of utter loons in my eyes, but never mind all that, let's suppose there is a G-d, and he loves you - would he want you to eat a fish that lives on prematurely harvested coprolites?
Somehow I just don't think so.
It's simple.
If they're on the ballot, they have already sold out.
Hey, I said it was simple, I didn't say it wasn't depressing.
Because the zed is redundant.
There is no word with an unvoiced 's' in that position. There is no distinction that needs to be preserved. And it's horribly bad form, in English, to use a zed outside the handful of cases where it is actually necessary to distinguish a voiced from an unvoiced 's.'
You are utterly confused.
English spelling is not at all arbitrary. If you know Middle English it makes perfect sense, and if you have a passing acquaintance with early modern English 98% of it will still make sense.
Yes, knight is spelled the way it is because it used to be pronounced that way and because that spelling differentiates it from another word which is now pronounced the same but has a very different meaning.
English spelling is very conservative, and properly so because that allows us to preserve distinctions that a phonetic writing system would destroy. English spelling has followed this path from VERY early times, and it's far from the only language to do that.
'America' didn't obsess over spelling in post-colonial times, however certain sections of New England, particularly a certain Mr. Webster, did. He deliberately changed many well-established conventions in an attempt to create a distinctively yankee literary language. One which much of the country accepted only at bayonette point, and noticeable portions rejected even then.