You bring up an interesting point, which I've never seen appropriately discussed.
In some of our special ed classes, there were what were called "co-teachers". In our specific implementation, there was essentially one teacher and one behavior specialist, who were also both trained in the other's discipline.
I've never seen this approach used in classes like biology, chemistry, or physics, classes that are hands on, lab oriented, and require special attention from the teacher.
Why not use two "teachers", one specialist in the subject, who also has teaching credentials, and one teacher who also has science credentials.
Well, that could be ideal, as the feild specialist would be the best person to answer questions etc, while the teacher is the best person to relate the material to the students.
However, It is currently very difficult to keep the teacher with science credentials in teaching, due to poor salary and working conditions. It would strain the budgets of most schools well beyond the breaking point to have classes with 2 teachers, not to mention the problem with trying to retain them both.
If goggle buys this, I can be almost certain that it will be used to create a nationwide Wireless network, probably a "broadband" network. The problem with the current systems are that only the existing cell companies can get into the business. There is no real way for a competitor to enter the market. Further, in general only approved devices can be used on the network (although the GSM networks are the exception). The companies can dictate what the network can be used for. As a result, Cellular internet prices are outrageous, and unfair.
So what Google would do is but the spectrum. They would standardize on a protocol. They would let companies provide services (most likely internet services) on that band. The companies offering services on that band would be required to let any devices that support the protocol to be used (likely a SIM-card like system would be used). The companies could not restrict the applications or services used on the network. Smaller companies would have a much better chance to get in on the action, as the major requirements would be an antenna on a cell tower, and a large internet connection. They would only need to provide the end users with a SIM, as the modems could be gotten anywhere. The total overhead of providing 700 MHz internet access would be far less than the traditional cell system, and thus there would be significant competition, and low prices.
The key here is that the spectrum owner has no interest in providing the service themselves, and has no reason to sell out to the large companies. So they would have no problem allowing multiple companies to provide the service in the same area. That is not heard of for most utilities. Also, unlike cell phones, the companies competing in the local area would not conspire to fix prices, as the cost of entrance would be low enough that a new player could easily join in.
If I am correct about that, that would be the sort of thing the government should do. That sort of regulation would level the playing field, and thus allow capitalism to work well both for businesses and for consumers. That would be the sort of regulation that is ideal. Unfortunately all too often, government regulation works to make the playing field less even, in the favor of the entrenched large companies that are already working in that sector.
On the other hand, you have evolutionists who
propose hypotheses which, when disproved by evidence,
continue to stick to their hypotheses. Was it the
Piltdown man which was later shown to be an ape
skull with a human jaw (or was it the other way
around)? Recent changes to the 'hypothesis
of evolution' include the idea that evolution
was not a slow change but a rapid event (in
response to tough conditions) and that two
separate species of Homo co-existed for a time
until one died out. In order to be science,
a hypothesis must be disprovable -- but hypotheses
which morph frequently & subtly to match new
evidence don't stand still long enough,
in my opinion, to meet the criteria of
a disprovable scientific hypothesis.
Your concern is then is not about the basic concept of evolution, but some specifics about human evolution, and the techniques of some researchers.
All true scientists would admit that the data available for constructing the history of human evolution is far from ideal (much more data would be greatly apprecitated by scientists). As such, it is possible that there are major mistakes in the current theories. But the basic concept of evolution (beyond just human evolution) is not only logical, but is supported by tons and tons of data.
Most of that stuff is valid science. One could potentially show that mutations are not random etc. To do this one merely needs to be able to accurately predict the outcome. Saying that something is not predictable can be falsified simply by showing that it is in fact predictable.
Ads are much more successful at putting information into the back of your mind. I admit that an ad is very unlikely to prompt me to purchase a product. However, it does let me take note of a products existence. Later on if i need such a product I'm more likely to realize that such a product does in fact exist, and thus purchase it. However, for some reason online ads are these days often measured by "per click" or "per action" rather than "per impression", so that the impact those ads have on me is counted as "0". (When in fact it is sometimes really a small positive number, and other times a small negative number [I've blacklisted products with annoying ads]).
I honestly do not know anybody who often clicks on ads and buys the resulting product, but apparently that is relatively common behavior by some people or nobody would measure online advertisements using "per click" rates.
While you are right be careful about confusing dynamic range compression (i.e. making the difference between the loudest and softest noise smaller by increasing the volume of the softest sounds) and audio format compression. I'm sure you are well ware of the difference, but Some of these people are not. Some people are quating bitrates without naimg the algorithm! Bitrates of different encoding algorithms are nor comparable. Then people tend to forget that the sampling rate (or it's analouge equivalent: (Tape quality)/(tape speed), (record quality)/(record speed), etc. ) has lossy compression-like effects (namely loss of information compaired to the original sounds). [Admittedly, sampling rate issues are mimial compared to the others, but one cannot deny its existence].
One thing I find odd is that few consumer audio devices seem to allow for intentional dynamic range compression (very useful for overcoming a noise floor, or for fixing movies that have enormous dynamic range, (theater style), where if you don't have the television turned up high enough you cannot hear the conversations, but if you have it high enough, the music or certain sound effects can be almost too loud. (Nobody cares in the theater, because they expect very high dynamic range, and do not feel concerned about the noise bothering others, but at home, things are different.) [Even the sound system I have (an Onkyo which is quite high quality for a standard consumer receiver) doe not seem to have this capability.] So one seems to need to go high end (by consumer standards, not by audiophile standards) before such features appear, i take it.
My very serious question to you is how much better do you think things are at a "real" encyclopedia. They have many of the same problems, but they are just not public. "Real" encyclopedias can be just an inaccurate as the Wikipedia on many articles. For a quick first reference, Wikipedia is an ideal tool. Just be sure to take things with a grain of salt if you are not checking the sources for further information. Guess what though, the same applies to "real" encyclopedias too. One difference is that with "real" encyclopedias, you always lack revision information, and you often lack information about the sources used by the editors. (Some encyclopedias are better than others in that respect.)
While that may be true, I suspect that in general native support for PDF can be better. I don't know about Macs, but on other operating systems, one often finds that PDF output via the printer mechanism may be missing features that a direct PDF output would include. For example, the bookmarks (table of contents) and hyperlinks. I find on Windows for example, few developers would even thing to include bookmark and hyper-link information in the printer output, as printers generally don't support that. (I'm not sure if the GDI interface even has support for it).
Does the Print to PDF feature of OS X usually result in documents having proper internal bookmarking and hyperlinks?
They have used a minimalistic wrapper around the main executable. That wrapper simply checks the steam.dll. The main executable is not modified. They distribute the source to the main executable. Replacing the wrapped executable with the main executable works fine. (The main executable is a build of the unmodified DOSBox source).
Nobody cares that they can't wrap the executable in the same way because it makes no difference.
Disclaimer: The above is based on other people's comments in this article. I have no firsthand knowledge of this.
I see no reason why atime updates can't be postponed until some moment other metadata has to be flushed, or once a minute, whatever comes first.
The exactness of atime might suffer, but nobody will notice.
That said, I agree the noatime mount option covers most needs. Almost nothing actually uses atime. The Relatime patch therefore only updates atime if mtime or ctime is newer (to show that the file has been accessed since it has been updated or created) or the current atime is over 1 day old. This increases IO usage only slightly compared to noatime, but is less likely to break those few applications that do use atime.
Well, their event horizons can collide, but once that happens, all bets are off, until some einstein 2.0 can figure out what happens in a black hole.
You bring up something odd. Overlaping event horizons. In the case that the event horizons are overlapping some, Some weird things migh end up happening to the particles inside.
If the singularity of one black hole went inside the event horizon of another, I'm betting that they would in fact merge. The movement of the event horizons would likely give us much insight as to the working of the interior. I'd also suspect that the event horizons would deform in some way rather than remaining spherical.
But back to that first case. What would be the fate of a particle in the area where the two event horizons overlap? If holes pass without merging, then eventually the event horizons would cease overlapping. But if a particle was in the overlapped area, how could it leave one event horizon to end up in one of the black holes after they have separated? To leave either event horizon into the other, would it not need to be traveling faster than the speed of light? Well i supose the escape velocities could partially cancel in the overlapping areas. Hmm...
That was the accepted condition after the bombs. A single condition of minor impact. The key is what conditions would Japan have required if the bombs were not used?
It seems quite possible that there would have been additional conditions. If those conditions were not acceptable, the war would most likely have continued.
It seems to be believed that a full invasion of Japan would have been unnecessary for acceptable terms of surrender. Many estimates indicate that far more casualties of all types (Allied, Japan Military, Japan Civilian) would have occurred in those battles. I do not know if this truly would have been the case. If it would have, then the use of the bombs may have been the best decision. If not, then it may have been a very poor decision. This is one case where hindsight does not appear to be 20/20.
There has been much information about this. The reality is that much of the information is wrong or only partially complete.
There were at least 3 problems, only one of which did not seem resolvable.
Debian has a policy of not introducing new upstream versions into a stable release. Instead, any necessary security changes are backported. MoCo's policies tend to counter this. But this was not too major an issue, and could likely have been resolved.
Debian distributed Firefox with some patches. MoCo's policy is that patched browsers cannot be labeled "Mozilla Firefox" or "Firefox" without special approval. Debian policy is that any such permission must not be Debian specific nor can it excessively delay the release of security fixes.. It seems likely that there wold be negotiations, and eventually a reasonable compromise could have occurred.
However there was the deal killer: The Firefox logo. The Firefox logo's copyright license does not meet the DFSG. Debian has a very stict policy there. It is not a problem that the logo is a Trademark, and thus special licensing conditions. The problem is that the MoCo was not willing to consider placing the logo copyright under a free license, and simply place restrictions on the image as a trademark. Debian therefore was unwilling to distribute the logo. Debian was willing to use a replacement logo that had been manually recreated, and looked nearly identical to the original. Obviously the use of that recreation would be subject the any trademark restrictions of MoCo. However, MoCo's policy was that only the official logo could be used, not a nearly identical replacement; the logo's copyright license was not going to be changed; and that the "Firefox" name cannot be used on a browser without the Logo. MoCo was not willing to compromise on these issues at all. So the choice for Debian was allow the official logo in despite its failure to meet the DFSG, have a renamed version of Firefox, or have no Firefox at all.
As you can see, that last issue was an absolute killer. It was not even worth working to resolve the other two unless that one was fixed. MoCo was not willing to compromise at all on the last issue. Debian decided not to compromise on the DFSG issue. So now we have Debian Iceweasel and Icedove.
That address is for the Defense Supply Center Columbus, or DSCC for short. Google Map Link My guess is that the DOD has its NIC located there. The simple fact is that the subnet referenced is a DOD subnet, which is merely managed from that location. The users of the address could be anybody in the DOD anywhere on Earth.
My feeling is the government should almost always support smaller businesses over larger businesses. This helps new or small companies remain around long enough to actually stand a chance of truly competing with the larger companies. My other feelings are that the Government favor individuals over large business. Personally I would prefer if large businesses had to *really* struggle to remain profitable. In most cases, many smaller companies competing is better for the people and economy than one or two large companies. As far as fiscal issues go, The government should ideally be required to maintain a balanced budget.
There must be some government regulation. The Government must be able to bring anti-trust suits. Otherwise you get monopolies like the old Standard Oil monopoly. (Ma Bell is not a great example because of other government regulations.) You need right-of-way laws (Some industries definitely require this, most notably the Electrical industries). Safety regulations should stay too, as the market is all too likely to choose cheap but highly dangerous products over slightly more expensive but far safer products.
For industries where for practical reasons there needs to be some regulation, I see no problem with that. I would see nothing wrong with a government department owning all the telephone lines, and allowing any company to use them for a fee, where the fees are calculated as to cover the costs of maintaining the lines/installing new lines as needed, but without generating a profit. The idea is that the company that owns the lines does not have an unfair advantage (Which is the current situation). (The laws do not let a cometing company put up a competing set of lines, as having 2 or more compete networks of phone lines in an area is absurd and not practical).
The key to capitalism truly working is always to have many small companies competing as equals. So the law should generally work to minimize one company having an advantage over another.
The criminal copyright related charges are intended to be used in mahor cases, like a film release ring. I don't really have a problem with it in that case. Nor in the case of selling bootleg software CDs. (Especially when making the customers believe they were buying a legitimate copy.)
I'm guessing this particular law was intended more as a plea bargain charge in the case they catch one of the groups members. (In exchange for revealing the identities of the other members, the person caught could plead guilty to this rather than facing full Criminal Copyright infringement costs.) The MPAA would likely be willing to go along with that, as hitting all but one member with full criminal copyright infringement charges is much better that hitting only one member with it.
Well, the now retired POSIX "subsystem" on top of NT kernel did yearn some proto-POSIX certification a decade ago. I wouldn't call _that_ Windows though. And as for why I'd like it (POSIX specs) is so I can code against it and hopefully FreeBSD, Linux, MacOSX, Solaris etc would be able to run it AOK. Standards are good. Well Interix is a POSIX subsystem for recent versions of NT based Windows. It is even part of Vista under the name "SUA" (Subsystem for Unix-based Applications). (It is a component of Vista Enterprise and Vista Ultimate). It may not be certified as Unix, but I'm guessing Microsoft could fix the remaining problems and get it certified if they wanted. Then it could be quite literally correct to say "Windows Vista Ultimate SP9" is UNIX. Obviously the Win32 Subsystem would not be UNIX, but still.
Well it depends on the exact type of artwork. I'll admit that 3d character models often are not usable in other games, but textures can be (especially generic textures).
All schedulers attempt to do that. However the old scheduler design collected statistics based on what process was running at each clock tick. So if a process always yielded right before the clock tick the scheduler would mark it as having used 0 ticks worth of clock time. So it would always stay near the top of the list, and could monopolize the CPU.
A fair scheduler basically times the actual CPU usage. It starts timing when it gives control to the process, and stops timing when the process yields or the scheduler decides to interrupt the process. it tracks processes not by ticks but by actual time used. (This post is based on my understanding of the issue. I may be incorrect.)
If they have a PhD in something other than physics, and they have the appropriate experience, then yes, they would get hired by my group. My point is that, today, that required experience comes with the physics PhD. The PhD is not something where you just improve your research techniques. There are important things that you learn during your PhD that do not get taught in undergrad and don't get taught in the grad studies of other fields.
So yes, I agree technically that it's not what one's PhD is in that's important, it's what one knows. But the fact is, no one without a PhD in physics (or physical chemistry) would have the experience that our group would require, especially when compared to other job candidates who did do their PhD in physics. My group not hiring someone without a physics PhD is not a failing on the part of my group, it's just a practical realization of that fact. To that end, taking your comments as about the availability of the specialized knowledge as true (and i have no reason to doubt it), then the failure is certainly not on your group but on the education system. It should be possible to obtain said knowledge through routes other than Physics PhD study. However, if in reality that is required, than having a physics PhD being a de facto requirement is entirely reasonable. I see no fault in your group for that. The first part of your reply definitely makes it clear that there is nothing wrong with your group.
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Maybe it was like that in times past, but not today. Even in the UK a PhD does include learning about specific things. Not only would my group never hire someone without a PhD specifically in physics (possibly physical chemistry), they wouldn't hire someone without experience specifically in laser cooling (which you won't get in any undergrad program). A person with a bachelor's degree in physics and a PhD in social work would be completely useless to us.
A PhD in a hard discipline (Engineering, a science, etc.) is a PhD. (I'm not sure about the PhD's in other fields. They may be more laxed, but they really should not be).
If your group would not accept somebody whose PhD was not in Physics, that is a failure of your group. Requiring that the person have taken the classes required for a PhD in physics is one thing. But somebody who has a PhD in let's say Mathematics, who has taken those courses at graduate or post-grad level, and has the required laser cooling experience, should certainly be fully qualified to work in your group. The key here is that perhaps the person did not do a doctoral thesis in your field. If they know the field, and are capable of performing doctoral thesis level of work, they for all intents and purposes are a Doctor of Physics.
(The use of "they" as a singular gender-nutral pronoun is fully intentional).
There are problems though. High DPI monitors are often used as though they were high resolution monitors of standard DPI. That is trivial to program, and many people like it just fine. On the other hand it is harder to make other programs look decent. The problem is many programs work by pixel based units and assume that a pixel is roughly the size of a pixel in a 96DPI display.
As for the 10 bit per component: I think they will find that very very few programs utilize this. It will be a pain to move beyond one bye per component. 10 bit per component a bit less of a pain as the 2 Least significant pixels of each component can be packed into a single byte which can usually be safely ignored. However, graphics formats are not ready.
Finally imagine the space used up when a program ships with a 1000X1000 36 bpp icon. And you know they would if 1000 DPI 26bpp monitors became common.
I can confirm this. I had a laptop with a single PS2 port. You could use either a PS/2 mouse or keyboard in it. For the other item you had to use USB or the built-in component.
Slashdot Mirror
In some of our special ed classes, there were what were called "co-teachers". In our specific implementation, there was essentially one teacher and one behavior specialist, who were also both trained in the other's discipline.
I've never seen this approach used in classes like biology, chemistry, or physics, classes that are hands on, lab oriented, and require special attention from the teacher.
Why not use two "teachers", one specialist in the subject, who also has teaching credentials, and one teacher who also has science credentials.
Well, that could be ideal, as the feild specialist would be the best person to answer questions etc, while the teacher is the best person to relate the material to the students. However, It is currently very difficult to keep the teacher with science credentials in teaching, due to poor salary and working conditions. It would strain the budgets of most schools well beyond the breaking point to have classes with 2 teachers, not to mention the problem with trying to retain them both.
If goggle buys this, I can be almost certain that it will be used to create a nationwide Wireless network, probably a "broadband" network.
The problem with the current systems are that only the existing cell companies can get into the business. There is no real way for a competitor to enter the market. Further, in general only approved devices can be used on the network (although the GSM networks are the exception). The companies can dictate what the network can be used for. As a result, Cellular internet prices are outrageous, and unfair.
So what Google would do is but the spectrum. They would standardize on a protocol. They would let companies provide services (most likely internet services) on that band. The companies offering services on that band would be required to let any devices that support the protocol to be used (likely a SIM-card like system would be used). The companies could not restrict the applications or services used on the network. Smaller companies would have a much better chance to get in on the action, as the major requirements would be an antenna on a cell tower, and a large internet connection. They would only need to provide the end users with a SIM, as the modems could be gotten anywhere. The total overhead of providing 700 MHz internet access would be far less than the traditional cell system, and thus there would be significant competition, and low prices.
The key here is that the spectrum owner has no interest in providing the service themselves, and has no reason to sell out to the large companies. So they would have no problem allowing multiple companies to provide the service in the same area. That is not heard of for most utilities. Also, unlike cell phones, the companies competing in the local area would not conspire to fix prices, as the cost of entrance would be low enough that a new player could easily join in.
If I am correct about that, that would be the sort of thing the government should do. That sort of regulation would level the playing field, and thus allow capitalism to work well both for businesses and for consumers. That would be the sort of regulation that is ideal. Unfortunately all too often, government regulation works to make the playing field less even, in the favor of the entrenched large companies that are already working in that sector.
propose hypotheses which, when disproved by evidence,
continue to stick to their hypotheses. Was it the
Piltdown man which was later shown to be an ape
skull with a human jaw (or was it the other way
around)? Recent changes to the 'hypothesis
of evolution' include the idea that evolution
was not a slow change but a rapid event (in
response to tough conditions) and that two
separate species of Homo co-existed for a time
until one died out. In order to be science,
a hypothesis must be disprovable -- but hypotheses
which morph frequently & subtly to match new
evidence don't stand still long enough,
in my opinion, to meet the criteria of
a disprovable scientific hypothesis.
Your concern is then is not about the basic concept of evolution, but some specifics about human evolution, and the techniques of some researchers. All true scientists would admit that the data available for constructing the history of human evolution is far from ideal (much more data would be greatly apprecitated by scientists). As such, it is possible that there are major mistakes in the current theories. But the basic concept of evolution (beyond just human evolution) is not only logical, but is supported by tons and tons of data.
Most of that stuff is valid science. One could potentially show that mutations are not random etc. To do this one merely needs to be able to accurately predict the outcome. Saying that something is not predictable can be falsified simply by showing that it is in fact predictable.
Ads are much more successful at putting information into the back of your mind. I admit that an ad is very unlikely to prompt me to purchase a product. However, it does let me take note of a products existence. Later on if i need such a product I'm more likely to realize that such a product does in fact exist, and thus purchase it. However, for some reason online ads are these days often measured by "per click" or "per action" rather than "per impression", so that the impact those ads have on me is counted as "0". (When in fact it is sometimes really a small positive number, and other times a small negative number [I've blacklisted products with annoying ads]). I honestly do not know anybody who often clicks on ads and buys the resulting product, but apparently that is relatively common behavior by some people or nobody would measure online advertisements using "per click" rates.
While you are right be careful about confusing dynamic range compression (i.e. making the difference between the loudest and softest noise smaller by increasing the volume of the softest sounds) and audio format compression. I'm sure you are well ware of the difference, but Some of these people are not. Some people are quating bitrates without naimg the algorithm! Bitrates of different encoding algorithms are nor comparable. Then people tend to forget that the sampling rate (or it's analouge equivalent: (Tape quality)/(tape speed), (record quality)/(record speed), etc. ) has lossy compression-like effects (namely loss of information compaired to the original sounds). [Admittedly, sampling rate issues are mimial compared to the others, but one cannot deny its existence].
One thing I find odd is that few consumer audio devices seem to allow for intentional dynamic range compression (very useful for overcoming a noise floor, or for fixing movies that have enormous dynamic range, (theater style), where if you don't have the television turned up high enough you cannot hear the conversations, but if you have it high enough, the music or certain sound effects can be almost too loud. (Nobody cares in the theater, because they expect very high dynamic range, and do not feel concerned about the noise bothering others, but at home, things are different.) [Even the sound system I have (an Onkyo which is quite high quality for a standard consumer receiver) doe not seem to have this capability.] So one seems to need to go high end (by consumer standards, not by audiophile standards) before such features appear, i take it.
My very serious question to you is how much better do you think things are at a "real" encyclopedia. They have many of the same problems, but they are just not public. "Real" encyclopedias can be just an inaccurate as the Wikipedia on many articles. For a quick first reference, Wikipedia is an ideal tool. Just be sure to take things with a grain of salt if you are not checking the sources for further information. Guess what though, the same applies to "real" encyclopedias too. One difference is that with "real" encyclopedias, you always lack revision information, and you often lack information about the sources used by the editors. (Some encyclopedias are better than others in that respect.)
While that may be true, I suspect that in general native support for PDF can be better. I don't know about Macs, but on other operating systems, one often finds that PDF output via the printer mechanism may be missing features that a direct PDF output would include. For example, the bookmarks (table of contents) and hyperlinks. I find on Windows for example, few developers would even thing to include bookmark and hyper-link information in the printer output, as printers generally don't support that. (I'm not sure if the GDI interface even has support for it).
Does the Print to PDF feature of OS X usually result in documents having proper internal bookmarking and hyperlinks?
They have used a minimalistic wrapper around the main executable. That wrapper simply checks the steam.dll. The main executable is not modified. They distribute the source to the main executable. Replacing the wrapped executable with the main executable works fine. (The main executable is a build of the unmodified DOSBox source).
Nobody cares that they can't wrap the executable in the same way because it makes no difference.
Disclaimer: The above is based on other people's comments in this article. I have no firsthand knowledge of this.
The exactness of atime might suffer, but nobody will notice.
That said, I agree the noatime mount option covers most needs. Almost nothing actually uses atime. The Relatime patch therefore only updates atime if mtime or ctime is newer (to show that the file has been accessed since it has been updated or created) or the current atime is over 1 day old. This increases IO usage only slightly compared to noatime, but is less likely to break those few applications that do use atime.
You bring up something odd. Overlaping event horizons. In the case that the event horizons are overlapping some, Some weird things migh end up happening to the particles inside. If the singularity of one black hole went inside the event horizon of another, I'm betting that they would in fact merge. The movement of the event horizons would likely give us much insight as to the working of the interior. I'd also suspect that the event horizons would deform in some way rather than remaining spherical.
But back to that first case. What would be the fate of a particle in the area where the two event horizons overlap? If holes pass without merging, then eventually the event horizons would cease overlapping. But if a particle was in the overlapped area, how could it leave one event horizon to end up in one of the black holes after they have separated? To leave either event horizon into the other, would it not need to be traveling faster than the speed of light? Well i supose the escape velocities could partially cancel in the overlapping areas. Hmm...
That was the accepted condition after the bombs. A single condition of minor impact. The key is what conditions would Japan have required if the bombs were not used? It seems quite possible that there would have been additional conditions. If those conditions were not acceptable, the war would most likely have continued. It seems to be believed that a full invasion of Japan would have been unnecessary for acceptable terms of surrender. Many estimates indicate that far more casualties of all types (Allied, Japan Military, Japan Civilian) would have occurred in those battles. I do not know if this truly would have been the case. If it would have, then the use of the bombs may have been the best decision. If not, then it may have been a very poor decision. This is one case where hindsight does not appear to be 20/20.
- Debian has a policy of not introducing new upstream versions into a stable release. Instead, any necessary security changes are backported. MoCo's policies tend to counter this. But this was not too major an issue, and could likely have been resolved.
- Debian distributed Firefox with some patches. MoCo's policy is that patched browsers cannot be labeled "Mozilla Firefox" or "Firefox" without special approval. Debian policy is that any such permission must not be Debian specific nor can it excessively delay the release of security fixes.. It seems likely that there wold be negotiations, and eventually a reasonable compromise could have occurred.
- However there was the deal killer: The Firefox logo. The Firefox logo's copyright license does not meet the DFSG. Debian has a very stict policy there. It is not a problem that the logo is a Trademark, and thus special licensing conditions. The problem is that the MoCo was not willing to consider placing the logo copyright under a free license, and simply place restrictions on the image as a trademark. Debian therefore was unwilling to distribute the logo. Debian was willing to use a replacement logo that had been manually recreated, and looked nearly identical to the original. Obviously the use of that recreation would be subject the any trademark restrictions of MoCo. However, MoCo's policy was that only the official logo could be used, not a nearly identical replacement; the logo's copyright license was not going to be changed; and that the "Firefox" name cannot be used on a browser without the Logo. MoCo was not willing to compromise on these issues at all. So the choice for Debian was allow the official logo in despite its failure to meet the DFSG, have a renamed version of Firefox, or have no Firefox at all.
As you can see, that last issue was an absolute killer. It was not even worth working to resolve the other two unless that one was fixed. MoCo was not willing to compromise at all on the last issue. Debian decided not to compromise on the DFSG issue. So now we have Debian Iceweasel and Icedove.My feeling is the government should almost always support smaller businesses over larger businesses. This helps new or small companies remain around long enough to actually stand a chance of truly competing with the larger companies. My other feelings are that the Government favor individuals over large business. Personally I would prefer if large businesses had to *really* struggle to remain profitable. In most cases, many smaller companies competing is better for the people and economy than one or two large companies. As far as fiscal issues go, The government should ideally be required to maintain a balanced budget.
There must be some government regulation. The Government must be able to bring anti-trust suits. Otherwise you get monopolies like the old Standard Oil monopoly. (Ma Bell is not a great example because of other government regulations.) You need right-of-way laws (Some industries definitely require this, most notably the Electrical industries). Safety regulations should stay too, as the market is all too likely to choose cheap but highly dangerous products over slightly more expensive but far safer products.
For industries where for practical reasons there needs to be some regulation, I see no problem with that. I would see nothing wrong with a government department owning all the telephone lines, and allowing any company to use them for a fee, where the fees are calculated as to cover the costs of maintaining the lines/installing new lines as needed, but without generating a profit. The idea is that the company that owns the lines does not have an unfair advantage (Which is the current situation). (The laws do not let a cometing company put up a competing set of lines, as having 2 or more compete networks of phone lines in an area is absurd and not practical).
The key to capitalism truly working is always to have many small companies competing as equals. So the law should generally work to minimize one company having an advantage over another.
I know you're just trying to rant, but in case anybody else is interested:
sudo su -
echo 'deb http://janvitus.interfree.it/ubuntu/ feisty-upure64 main-amd64' >
apt-get update
apt-get install nspluginwrapper
and voila, you can use the flash plugin on 64bit linux.
Um... is it just me or is "sudo su -" a bad idea?
Most sudo configurations will allow "sudo -i" to do what is desired. (A root shell with root's environment variables)
Besides, it is safer to just run reach command through sudo. (Better auditing among other things).
The criminal copyright related charges are intended to be used in mahor cases, like a film release ring. I don't really have a problem with it in that case. Nor in the case of selling bootleg software CDs. (Especially when making the customers believe they were buying a legitimate copy.)
I'm guessing this particular law was intended more as a plea bargain charge in the case they catch one of the groups members. (In exchange for revealing the identities of the other members, the person caught could plead guilty to this rather than facing full Criminal Copyright infringement costs.) The MPAA would likely be willing to go along with that, as hitting all but one member with full criminal copyright infringement charges is much better that hitting only one member with it.
Well it depends on the exact type of artwork. I'll admit that 3d character models often are not usable in other games, but textures can be (especially generic textures).
A fair scheduler basically times the actual CPU usage. It starts timing when it gives control to the process, and stops timing when the process yields or the scheduler decides to interrupt the process. it tracks processes not by ticks but by actual time used. (This post is based on my understanding of the issue. I may be incorrect.)
So yes, I agree technically that it's not what one's PhD is in that's important, it's what one knows. But the fact is, no one without a PhD in physics (or physical chemistry) would have the experience that our group would require, especially when compared to other job candidates who did do their PhD in physics. My group not hiring someone without a physics PhD is not a failing on the part of my group, it's just a practical realization of that fact. To that end, taking your comments as about the availability of the specialized knowledge as true (and i have no reason to doubt it), then the failure is certainly not on your group but on the education system. It should be possible to obtain said knowledge through routes other than Physics PhD study. However, if in reality that is required, than having a physics PhD being a de facto requirement is entirely reasonable. I see no fault in your group for that. The first part of your reply definitely makes it clear that there is nothing wrong with your group.
A PhD in a hard discipline (Engineering, a science, etc.) is a PhD. (I'm not sure about the PhD's in other fields. They may be more laxed, but they really should not be).
If your group would not accept somebody whose PhD was not in Physics, that is a failure of your group. Requiring that the person have taken the classes required for a PhD in physics is one thing. But somebody who has a PhD in let's say Mathematics, who has taken those courses at graduate or post-grad level, and has the required laser cooling experience, should certainly be fully qualified to work in your group. The key here is that perhaps the person did not do a doctoral thesis in your field. If they know the field, and are capable of performing doctoral thesis level of work, they for all intents and purposes are a Doctor of Physics.
(The use of "they" as a singular gender-nutral pronoun is fully intentional).There are problems though. High DPI monitors are often used as though they were high resolution monitors of standard DPI. That is trivial to program, and many people like it just fine. On the other hand it is harder to make other programs look decent. The problem is many programs work by pixel based units and assume that a pixel is roughly the size of a pixel in a 96DPI display.
As for the 10 bit per component: I think they will find that very very few programs utilize this. It will be a pain to move beyond one bye per component. 10 bit per component a bit less of a pain as the 2 Least significant pixels of each component can be packed into a single byte which can usually be safely ignored. However, graphics formats are not ready.
Finally imagine the space used up when a program ships with a 1000X1000 36 bpp icon. And you know they would if 1000 DPI 26bpp monitors became common.
I can confirm this. I had a laptop with a single PS2 port. You could use either a PS/2 mouse or keyboard in it. For the other item you had to use USB or the built-in component.
Or if he was wanting dates in plain text to be recognized by the browser (for whatever reason), the "time" tag is available to do that.