In order to make digital backups that are more durable than their analog counterparts: 1) Make a digital copy 2) Repeat step 1 until your digital copy takes up as much physical space as an analog copy would 3) For no reason, lay out all your digital copies in such a way that the whole of them create an analog copy 4) For fun, Pretend what you've done is "holographic storage"
may just have to try it, then. Somehow I doubt it, just because 1) I've never heard that before; and 2) I always hear people complaining that Gentoo is stupid because you need to compile everything.
Still, may as well try it, if the option potentially exists.
I suspect virtualization will invalidate your argument in time. If I/really/ need to install some software which will absolutely not (no matter what) play nicely with any other software, I'm fine with it running in some virtual playground where it thinks things are however it wants.
Meanwhile: in various environments, supporting outdated backwards pieces-of-shit is part of the spec. I prefer "write a portability layer around both ways", but often a policy of always using the lowest-common-denominator can be simpler.
"Due to licensing issues, we are no longer able to receive security updates to Firefox in an expedient manner. In the interests of maintaining security, we have begun using the fork "Iceweasel". Functionality remains the same, the only user-visible differences being in the name."
To A: I had considered that one would do their best to clean off moon dust when re-pressurizing, but I also do my best to brush off my shoes and jacket when entering my house. I'd guess there's a catch-22 here: You could vacuum it up before turning on the air so that none of the dust will get into the air.. but of course you need air for the vacuum to do anything (vacuum + vacuum = vacuum, not suction)
To B: I don't see how that applies. Are you saying Moon Dust is too heavy for normal air? That may be. As I said, I am not informed. I figured nobody would be making a fuss unless moon dust, once in the air, was a bad thing.
Presumably, and this is just my uninformed guess, but: I don't think any seriously-considered proposals for permanent moon bases involve astronauts remaining in spacesuits the entire time. We'd probably want to pressurize [fill with air] a whole area, for example a domed area on the surface or a tunnel below the surface.
My house has its own floor, but I still track dirt in, and it travels well enough even with 1 whole g pulling it down.
Well, yes, it's simple to compile your own packages when that's what the entire system is based on. Attack of the poor metaphor: "I've had trouble with others providing me with only screwdrivers. Do you provide a hammer?" "Yes. In fact, it's a very good hammer because that's all we provide, so we can stay focused."
I hear many good things about Gentoo. If they'd just get rid of that one tiny problem.. Throwing out the "way things are done" may be a good thing, but I don't think throwing out the concept is. It's a good concept.
Right now I use Debian. I use it because I'm lazy. However, every now and then, a package will just stop getting updated. Maintainer goes on to better things, maybe. It's not that the software no longer exists, it's just the maintainer isn't making Debian Packages for it anymore. One reason or another. Often it's not "no longer making..." but "isn't making _right_now_, but really intends to at some point" (ie: packages are out of date)
What Linux currently lacks is an overall packaging scheme to allow people to switch between using Packages and hand-built sources easily.
Another example: Perl modules vs Debian packages. Ruby gems vs Debian packages. These systems are not linked together in any way, so if I say "gem install foo", and Debian later supports a foo package (as it often does), there's no connection to say "this already exists" or even "this exists over here, not over here" (many things like putting things in many places)
I realize there are efforts being made towards fixing both of these problems, but that only serves to point out that they're very real problems.
So what happens if you vendor goes away? You can just compile the sources by hand, of course! But if there's no overall packaging scheme, distribution is going to be hell.
Yes, everyone always says: "We can't allow interracial marriage! Soon gays and polygamists will want to marry under-aged animals!" But those arguments are dismissed as silly, and interracial couples act outraged at being compared to gays, polygamists, and beastial.. ists..; Eventually opposition gives in because they never actually did come up with a counter-argument to "the government has no business saying I can't marry whoever I want" better than the non-argument "If we let/you/ marry whoever you'll want, we'll have to let everyone marry whoever they want!"
So now, years later, we're of course faced with this dilemma of beastiality. Unfortunately, this time there's no group left for the "We want to regulate a purely religious institution" crowd to point to and say "what next?", so of course the last walls around marriage will be torn down.
Looking back in the past, we should have seen this coming. Each argument-against was based on the "slippery slope". "We don't want to allow A because then people will want B!", "We don't want to allow B because then people will want C!". Of course when you get to the end of the line, eventually there's "We don't want to allow Z. We/really/ don't want to allow Z. Because.. crap!"
"Causality is an aspect of the universe" therefore: "The universe itself (or whatever caused it, ad infiniwhatever) requires no cause" gee, that was tough. And only figured out several thousand years ago...
Interestingly: even if causality exists within our universe, it does not exist in any universe which does not exist. Draw your own conclusion, so long as it's the same as mine.;)
To rephrase: "Research", "Design", "Practical Application" Computer Science looks into things which are not immediately practical. Software Development takes those ideas and makes them practical Information Technology applies the technology developed by Software Development on real data (ie: information)
But then, by those definitions I'm just an I.T. guy, so that's no fun:\
Used lots of places (especially recently). I specifically said that in my first post: I did care to look, and low-and-behold it had objects. But look for a javascript tutorial. You'd not guess that it allows user-defined objects from the first five hits, and you won't bother to look further since the first five hits seem so in-depth.
I've never read the official C standard, but because I use it every day, I assume I know C. I hear the official javascript standard is poorly-written crap. I've never read that either.
Standards are for idealists. Other people's code is for programmers. When I used javascript, I read other people's code until I had the basics down, then bought a book and read that. I haven't used it in years (for anything non-trivial), but recently needed to do something, so I read other people's code. Hey look, objects! The book didn't mention those..
I have no reason to be annoyed with "Javascript is not object-oriented", because it really is such an obscure bit of information. You're actually the first place I've ever seen to even mention it. Sure, I've noticed it used in some places, to which I thought "Javascript is object oriented? I didn't know that.", but nobody seems keen to tell anyone else;)
I thought that was already part of the GPL2, it just didn't explicitly mention patents. I see listing things explicitly (patents, DRM), rather that relying on a sweeping "anything you do to restrict others' ability to enjoy the same rights to use the software which you have, terminates your rights under this license in full"[of course, worded better], as a mistake.
to push a hypothetical beyond the breaking point: I would like anyone who prevents, at gunpoint, users of my software from freely modifying and redistributing it, to lose their rights to redistribute my software.
I wonder if these people also complain when the camera has an overhead shot, since in real life people always see things at eye level. It's a matter of perspective. In a movie, the perspective is mutable. Don't think two asteroids colliding makes a sound? Try living inside an asteroid. "Sound doesn't travel through a vacuum!" and "Sound doesn't occur when things happen to objects which are in a vacuum!" are two different and unrelated concepts.
Adobe Acrobat (the full version, not the free one) allows you to not only fill out the fields (as is possible with the free version), but also click "save" to have the field values be saved.
"There are no good programs which have anything to do with PDF" is a valid statement, but it's not a limitation of the PDF format.
I don't know which side of yourself you're on. Are you saying [falsely, and as a negative] that you can't download a PDF form, fill it out, save it, sign it, and e-mail it back, making it non-suitable for such tasks or are you saying [falsely, and as a positive] that you can't alter a PDF other than the form elements specifically noted to be alterable, making it suitable for such tasks?
If you're looking for reasons to not use XML, look elsewhere. I am not saying that. I'm sure somebody is, but that's no what my post is about. Use XML. XML is quite decent for small things which would be considered "documents" instead of a loose use of the term "database'. Which is what this law is about. There is nothing wrong with XML for that.
There/is/ something wrong with codifying "Use XML" to mean "use open standards".
I don't know if you've just been ignoring my arguments because you found them harder to attack than the made-up one of "xml is a bad choice", or just honestly didn't catch them (forgive me for assuming you had no idea what you were talking about simply because you seemed to be replying to a post with no knowledge of what/it/ was talking about), but hopefully this reply will clear that up.
Slashdot Mirror
In order to make digital backups that are more durable than their analog counterparts:
1) Make a digital copy
2) Repeat step 1 until your digital copy takes up as much physical space as an analog copy would
3) For no reason, lay out all your digital copies in such a way that the whole of them create an analog copy
4) For fun, Pretend what you've done is "holographic storage"
may just have to try it, then. Somehow I doubt it, just because 1) I've never heard that before; and 2) I always hear people complaining that Gentoo is stupid because you need to compile everything.
Still, may as well try it, if the option potentially exists.
Gentoo can't do that, according to everyone I've ever asked.
I suspect virtualization will invalidate your argument in time. /really/ need to install some software which will absolutely not (no matter what) play nicely with any other software, I'm fine with it running in some virtual playground where it thinks things are however it wants.
If I
Meanwhile: in various environments, supporting outdated backwards pieces-of-shit is part of the spec. I prefer "write a portability layer around both ways", but often a policy of always using the lowest-common-denominator can be simpler.
"Due to licensing issues, we are no longer able to receive security updates to Firefox in an expedient manner. In the interests of maintaining security, we have begun using the fork "Iceweasel". Functionality remains the same, the only user-visible differences being in the name."
Yes, but: I don't think any seriously-considered proposals for permanent moon bases involve astronauts remaining in spacesuits the entire time.
To A: I had considered that one would do their best to clean off moon dust when re-pressurizing, but I also do my best to brush off my shoes and jacket when entering my house. I'd guess there's a catch-22 here: You could vacuum it up before turning on the air so that none of the dust will get into the air.. but of course you need air for the vacuum to do anything (vacuum + vacuum = vacuum, not suction)
/tries/ to keep things clean.
To B: I don't see how that applies. Are you saying Moon Dust is too heavy for normal air? That may be. As I said, I am not informed. I figured nobody would be making a fuss unless moon dust, once in the air, was a bad thing.
Everyone
Presumably, and this is just my uninformed guess, but:
I don't think any seriously-considered proposals for permanent moon bases involve astronauts remaining in spacesuits the entire time. We'd probably want to pressurize [fill with air] a whole area, for example a domed area on the surface or a tunnel below the surface.
My house has its own floor, but I still track dirt in, and it travels well enough even with 1 whole g pulling it down.
Well, yes, it's simple to compile your own packages when that's what the entire system is based on. Attack of the poor metaphor: "I've had trouble with others providing me with only screwdrivers. Do you provide a hammer?" "Yes. In fact, it's a very good hammer because that's all we provide, so we can stay focused."
I hear many good things about Gentoo. If they'd just get rid of that one tiny problem..
Throwing out the "way things are done" may be a good thing, but I don't think throwing out the concept is. It's a good concept.
Right now I use Debian. I use it because I'm lazy.
However, every now and then, a package will just stop getting updated. Maintainer goes on to better things, maybe. It's not that the software no longer exists, it's just the maintainer isn't making Debian Packages for it anymore. One reason or another. Often it's not "no longer making..." but "isn't making _right_now_, but really intends to at some point" (ie: packages are out of date)
What Linux currently lacks is an overall packaging scheme to allow people to switch between using Packages and hand-built sources easily.
Another example: Perl modules vs Debian packages. Ruby gems vs Debian packages. These systems are not linked together in any way, so if I say "gem install foo", and Debian later supports a foo package (as it often does), there's no connection to say "this already exists" or even "this exists over here, not over here" (many things like putting things in many places)
I realize there are efforts being made towards fixing both of these problems, but that only serves to point out that they're very real problems.
So what happens if you vendor goes away? You can just compile the sources by hand, of course!
But if there's no overall packaging scheme, distribution is going to be hell.
Yes, everyone always says: "We can't allow interracial marriage! Soon gays and polygamists will want to marry under-aged animals!" /you/ marry whoever you'll want, we'll have to let everyone marry whoever they want!"
/really/ don't want to allow Z. Because.. crap!"
But those arguments are dismissed as silly, and interracial couples act outraged at being compared to gays, polygamists, and beastial.. ists..; Eventually opposition gives in because they never actually did come up with a counter-argument to "the government has no business saying I can't marry whoever I want" better than the non-argument "If we let
So now, years later, we're of course faced with this dilemma of beastiality. Unfortunately, this time there's no group left for the "We want to regulate a purely religious institution" crowd to point to and say "what next?", so of course the last walls around marriage will be torn down.
Looking back in the past, we should have seen this coming. Each argument-against was based on the "slippery slope". "We don't want to allow A because then people will want B!", "We don't want to allow B because then people will want C!". Of course when you get to the end of the line, eventually there's "We don't want to allow Z. We
A few people beat him to it
"Causality is an aspect of the universe" therefore: "The universe itself (or whatever caused it, ad infiniwhatever) requires no cause"
;)
gee, that was tough. And only figured out several thousand years ago...
Interestingly: even if causality exists within our universe, it does not exist in any universe which does not exist. Draw your own conclusion, so long as it's the same as mine.
In my experience, a CS degree means no such thing :/
To rephrase:
:\
"Research", "Design", "Practical Application"
Computer Science looks into things which are not immediately practical.
Software Development takes those ideas and makes them practical
Information Technology applies the technology developed by Software Development on real data (ie: information)
But then, by those definitions I'm just an I.T. guy, so that's no fun
"It receives no funding from any government source, has no contract with the government, and does not sell sponsorships or advertising."
:\
I had no idea
Used lots of places (especially recently). I specifically said that in my first post: I did care to look, and low-and-behold it had objects.
But look for a javascript tutorial. You'd not guess that it allows user-defined objects from the first five hits, and you won't bother to look further since the first five hits seem so in-depth.
I've never read the official C standard, but because I use it every day, I assume I know C.
I hear the official javascript standard is poorly-written crap. I've never read that either.
Standards are for idealists. Other people's code is for programmers. When I used javascript, I read other people's code until I had the basics down, then bought a book and read that. I haven't used it in years (for anything non-trivial), but recently needed to do something, so I read other people's code. Hey look, objects! The book didn't mention those..
but then I use perl, so what's a "standard"?
I have no reason to be annoyed with "Javascript is not object-oriented", because it really is such an obscure bit of information. You're actually the first place I've ever seen to even mention it. Sure, I've noticed it used in some places, to which I thought "Javascript is object oriented? I didn't know that.", but nobody seems keen to tell anyone else ;)
I thought that was already part of the GPL2, it just didn't explicitly mention patents. I see listing things explicitly (patents, DRM), rather that relying on a sweeping "anything you do to restrict others' ability to enjoy the same rights to use the software which you have, terminates your rights under this license in full"[of course, worded better], as a mistake.
to push a hypothetical beyond the breaking point:
I would like anyone who prevents, at gunpoint, users of my software from freely modifying and redistributing it, to lose their rights to redistribute my software.
The GPL3 has no such provision.
--Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.Reason: Please use fewer --
r152892 | subcommittee-5928 | 2007-03-05 22:48:02 -0500 (Mon, 05 Mar 2007) | 2 lines
* Compromise to end bickering over -r152891
--Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.Reason: Please use fewer --
Individual lawmakers do not make changes, afaik.
I wonder if these people also complain when the camera has an overhead shot, since in real life people always see things at eye level.
It's a matter of perspective. In a movie, the perspective is mutable. Don't think two asteroids colliding makes a sound? Try living inside an asteroid.
"Sound doesn't travel through a vacuum!" and "Sound doesn't occur when things happen to objects which are in a vacuum!" are two different and unrelated concepts.
Adobe Acrobat (the full version, not the free one) allows you to not only fill out the fields (as is possible with the free version), but also click "save" to have the field values be saved.
"There are no good programs which have anything to do with PDF" is a valid statement, but it's not a limitation of the PDF format.
I don't know which side of yourself you're on.
Are you saying [falsely, and as a negative] that you can't download a PDF form, fill it out, save it, sign it, and e-mail it back, making it non-suitable for such tasks
or are you saying [falsely, and as a positive] that you can't alter a PDF other than the form elements specifically noted to be alterable, making it suitable for such tasks?
If you're looking for reasons to not use XML, look elsewhere. I am not saying that. I'm sure somebody is, but that's no what my post is about.
/is/ something wrong with codifying "Use XML" to mean "use open standards".
/it/ was talking about), but hopefully this reply will clear that up.
Use XML. XML is quite decent for small things which would be considered "documents" instead of a loose use of the term "database'. Which is what this law is about. There is nothing wrong with XML for that.
There
I don't know if you've just been ignoring my arguments because you found them harder to attack than the made-up one of "xml is a bad choice", or just honestly didn't catch them (forgive me for assuming you had no idea what you were talking about simply because you seemed to be replying to a post with no knowledge of what
Yes, specifying "XML" is an obvious (and pointless) bias towards using ODF.