I started this branch of the thread, and it was originally a joke. But some people took it seriously, so it became a troll. I encouraged many replies by posting crazy comments. I couldn't help myself - I was having too much fun. I promise to refrain from another troll for a few months.
The Linux driver situation made my decision easy for me. I went to some websites and looked at driver suppoort. The first one that listed a downloadable Linux driver was the one I bought. I've been very happy with my Netgear wireless card ever since.
I don't think the person you're referring to is reluctant to change because the current environment is familiar. I think they are reluctant because the current environment is unfamiliar. That is, the comfort factor in the current environment just isn't there, and there is a fear that if they change, they won't be able to learn the new software or method.
Something interesting: gcc on PPC doesn't generate code as good as Visual Age for C++ on PPC. Hopefully, as these machines become more popular gcc will become better on the PPC.
The parent was modded funny, because it IS funny. It's absurd to say a crappy format like VHS is better than DVD, right? Of course it is. I was making fun of those who say that vinyl is better than CD. And that's all. When all the fish started biting, I started having fun. Now, my boat is so full of fish that it might sink from the weight!
GA's do not create a bunch of random programs until it gets one right. That's not efficient. The initial set is random, but then after that there is a selection process whereby bad pieces of the programs can be identified and discarded through a selection process.
Think of the game mastermind. If you just put random pegs in each row, without considering the feedback about the errors in the previous row, then you are playing like one of those mythical Shakespeare monkeys.
But when we play mastermind, it's not random. The first row is random, but each row after that is a refinement of the previous row, based on the feedback given.
(BTW, this explanation is the counter argument to the creationist notion that evolving life is like trying to assemble a 747 in a junkyard, using nothing but a tornado.)
I find it amazing that you could have professional experience in the audio and visual arts, but you don't know that VHS is better than DVD! I am just amazed! Sit down and watch Babe: Pig in the City and tell me that beautiful pig doesn't look more lifelike on VHS than on DVD.
And make sure that you watch it on the one true format: a 4:3 TV screen. This widescreen stuff is heretical. Distracting the eyeball with perepheral vision is counterproductive to good video viewing.
Ask a true videophile friend of yours, he can explain it to you.
I just had a weird vision of a commencement speaker saying:
"Congratulations on the graduation of MCLE class of 2015. Please pick up your certificate on the right, and the keys to your flying car on the left. Thank you."
If you read all the ways that you can satisfy the LGPL, it's clear. Read the license, and it's clear.
In a nutshell: If you distribute a program that uses a LGPL library, you must provide a way for a user to use your program with the LGPL library.
-If the LGPL library is dynamically linked, the user can do this automatically. -If the LGPL library is statically linked, you must provide object files so that the program can be re-linked by the user. -If you're using Java with a LGPL library, you have to provide.class files that can be used with the new library. -If you're including code from a LGPL library, that explicitly does NOT make the including source file LGPL.
All of the examples given are covered by this text:
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.
That sentence quite clearly defines what an executable is, and quite clearly separates the process of linking, whenever it happens, from the definition of an executable. This makes the LGPL clearly and easily cover something like a completely interpreted language that would be distributed in a text form consisting of an LGPL library, and a proprietary program that uses the library (in obfuscated source perhaps).
When you distribute your program, ask yourself this question: "With the files that I have included on my program CD, can the user download the next version of the LGPL library and use it with my program that they are getting on the CD? And if they recompile the same version of the LGPL library, can they reproduce a program that works just like the one they are getting on the CD?"
If the answers are both yes, you are compliant with the LGPL.
Oh I do so get tired of explaining why VHS is better than DVD to people who are so uncouth, no offense intended.
There's a certain level of skill that needs to be developed. Skill with the eye, skill with the ear. I have that skill, honed through many years of sitting on my ass watching movies such as Ghost, and Babe Pig in the City. On VHS, of course. Babe's pink skin is a good test for this. The pink pig skin is very very hard for a digital signal to reproduce. It's not white, it's not red. It is somewhere in between! It is obviously analog, and VHS is better at reproducing it. That's what I mean by organic warmth. In this case, it's porcine warmth, not human warmth, but the body temperatures are similar.
Everyone that I have talked to in the past who has the same level of visual skill that I possess through years of hard work agrees with me. VHS is better. Many of these people who agree with me also know that vinyl sounds much better than a CD, for the same reasons.
You're not reading or understanding. As I mentioned before, objective tests will tell you nothing. You just have to believe the evidence of your eyes. The VHS looks truer, and since the digital images are laid out in a grid, a rectangular grid, there's an impedance mismatch with the spherical eye. Only an analog system can get over that mismatch so the eye can smoothly process the images. Your laboratory instruments that tell you how many lines this, and how many pixels that are also laid out according to a rectangular plan. They cannot be used to tell you anything about the superior nature of VHS when viewed by the human eye.
Those digitally mastered vinyl record show all the flaws that a CD shows.
You've got to have an analog master on your vinyl record.
And, digital movies are going to kill it. There's no way that the dynamic range of videotape can ever be used properly if the movie is just a bunch of ones and zeros.
What are magnetics for? I did some research, and I think they might be like transformers. Lots of tiny ones, in a little box. One for each wire on the interface.
For what? Impedance matching? Am I right or wrong.
You did just fine, because everything you wrote makes PERFECT sense to a true videophile. Intuitive viewing takes a long time to develop, similar to the sense that some people have for ingredients in food. One nibble, and they can tell you exactly what is in a dish, and just how the chef prepared it.
Your signature line says "written with DVORAK". Well, then I don't have to tell you this, but I guess that it's not intuitive. If you examine every single keyboard format, and compare QWERTY and Dvorak you find that the best typists are equally good on each one.
That's your laboratory test. And guess what? It tells you that QWERTY is just as good as Dvorak
But you and I know that's hogwash, and that Dvorak is superior. Why? Because there's no impedance mismatch between the fingers and the Dvorak keyboard.
Same with VHS. The harshness of a DVD is like watching a TV in the dark. The human eye reacts in a different way than instruments do, so all your numbers about how DVD's are better don't apply to the eye.
VHS has no impedance mismatch with the human eye, but DVD's do.
The superior quality of VHS is not something that you can detect with lab equipment, or calculate with math. Well, maybe with imaginary numbers possibly. Lab equipment just reacts differently than the human eye, so of course it will tell you that by the numbers a VHS tape will not be as good. But, if you believe the evidence of your eyes, your HUMAN eyes, then you will see that VHS is far far better than any digital signal could possibly be. DVD's just look cold and flat, and VHS has a human organic type warmth to it that is really subtle.
Well, if your cables are already high quality, then it must be your pickup head. It might be dirty. There are lots of other possibilities, for example, the tape itself might have dust or fingerprints on it. Or maybe the VCR itself is low quality. It's hard to find one with a tube amp, and they are very expensive, but worty it. If you can't see that VHS is much better than DVD, there's something wrong with the equipment, or maybe your video sense isn't as well tuned as you think it is.
The motor in the VCR takes a lot of current, and the thin wires in the stock power cord isn't up to the task. There are special power cords with really thick wire and gold plated connectors that can supply the current to the motor and help you realize the vast potential of VHS. Unless you have good equipment, you're never going to see that VHS is better than DVD.
I got some VHS tapes that are gold plated to eliminate electromagnetic distortion. You need good equipment to unleash the quality in your VHS. Only $150 per tape. I have a "Star Wars Special" - buy 6 (Stock up for the upcoming movid) for $600.
Slashdot Mirror
I started this branch of the thread, and it was originally a joke. But some people took it seriously, so it became a troll. I encouraged many replies by posting crazy comments. I couldn't help myself - I was having too much fun. I promise to refrain from another troll for a few months.
Eliza! Someone has hooked an Eliza program into Slashdot! Cool.
The Linux driver situation made my decision easy for me. I went to some websites and looked at driver suppoort. The first one that listed a downloadable Linux driver was the one I bought. I've been very happy with my Netgear wireless card ever since.
Since they all sat around in the dark, apparently it takes >13 CEO's to change a lightbulb.
I don't think the person you're referring to is reluctant to change because the current environment is familiar. I think they are reluctant because the current environment is unfamiliar. That is, the comfort factor in the current environment just isn't there, and there is a fear that if they change, they won't be able to learn the new software or method.
Nope. It only does C and C++.
Compilers don't generate well code, they generate good code, or bad code.
Gcc can generate code just as well as Visual C++ does. But gcc cannot generate code just as good.
See?
Something interesting: gcc on PPC doesn't generate code as good as Visual Age for C++ on PPC. Hopefully, as these machines become more popular gcc will become better on the PPC.
I found this article that talks about this
OK, I'm getting tired of this.
The parent was modded funny, because it IS funny. It's absurd to say a crappy format like VHS is better than DVD, right? Of course it is. I was making fun of those who say that vinyl is better than CD. And that's all. When all the fish started biting, I started having fun. Now, my boat is so full of fish that it might sink from the weight!
Analog sucks. Always has, always will.
GA's do not create a bunch of random programs until it gets one right. That's not efficient. The initial set is random, but then after that there is a selection process whereby bad pieces of the programs can be identified and discarded through a selection process.
Think of the game mastermind. If you just put random pegs in each row, without considering the feedback about the errors in the previous row, then you are playing like one of those mythical Shakespeare monkeys.
But when we play mastermind, it's not random. The first row is random, but each row after that is a refinement of the previous row, based on the feedback given.
(BTW, this explanation is the counter argument to the creationist notion that evolving life is like trying to assemble a 747 in a junkyard, using nothing but a tornado.)
I find it amazing that you could have professional experience in the audio and visual arts, but you don't know that VHS is better than DVD! I am just amazed! Sit down and watch Babe: Pig in the City and tell me that beautiful pig doesn't look more lifelike on VHS than on DVD.
And make sure that you watch it on the one true format: a 4:3 TV screen. This widescreen stuff is heretical. Distracting the eyeball with perepheral vision is counterproductive to good video viewing.
Ask a true videophile friend of yours, he can explain it to you.
(MCLE) Microsoft Certified Linux Expert
I just had a weird vision of a commencement speaker saying:
"Congratulations on the graduation of MCLE class of 2015. Please pick up your certificate on the right, and the keys to your flying car on the left. Thank you."
In a nutshell: If you distribute a program that uses a LGPL library, you must provide a way for a user to use your program with the LGPL library.
-If the LGPL library is dynamically linked, the user can do this automatically.
-If the LGPL library is statically linked, you must provide object files so that the program can be re-linked by the user.
-If you're using Java with a LGPL library, you have to provide
-If you're including code from a LGPL library, that explicitly does NOT make the including source file LGPL.
All of the examples given are covered by this text:
That sentence quite clearly defines what an executable is, and quite clearly separates the process of linking, whenever it happens, from the definition of an executable. This makes the LGPL clearly and easily cover something like a completely interpreted language that would be distributed in a text form consisting of an LGPL library, and a proprietary program that uses the library (in obfuscated source perhaps).
When you distribute your program, ask yourself this question: "With the files that I have included on my program CD, can the user download the next version of the LGPL library and use it with my program that they are getting on the CD? And if they recompile the same version of the LGPL library, can they reproduce a program that works just like the one they are getting on the CD?"
If the answers are both yes, you are compliant with the LGPL.
BTW, IANAL.
Take a look at this whole thread. There are quite a number of people I'm fooling. So are you convinced that VHS is better than DVD?
If you run Linux, just type mkpasswd. You can redirect something from /dev/random to get a random password if you really want to get picky.
It'll give you something like: SvDQCa82VDQeg
That's the output when you type 'foo' as input. You probably want to use a better seed string than foo
Oh I do so get tired of explaining why VHS is better than DVD to people who are so uncouth, no offense intended.
There's a certain level of skill that needs to be developed. Skill with the eye, skill with the ear. I have that skill, honed through many years of sitting on my ass watching movies such as Ghost, and Babe Pig in the City. On VHS, of course. Babe's pink skin is a good test for this. The pink pig skin is very very hard for a digital signal to reproduce. It's not white, it's not red. It is somewhere in between! It is obviously analog, and VHS is better at reproducing it. That's what I mean by organic warmth. In this case, it's porcine warmth, not human warmth, but the body temperatures are similar.
Everyone that I have talked to in the past who has the same level of visual skill that I possess through years of hard work agrees with me. VHS is better. Many of these people who agree with me also know that vinyl sounds much better than a CD, for the same reasons.
You're not reading or understanding. As I mentioned before, objective tests will tell you nothing. You just have to believe the evidence of your eyes. The VHS looks truer, and since the digital images are laid out in a grid, a rectangular grid, there's an impedance mismatch with the spherical eye. Only an analog system can get over that mismatch so the eye can smoothly process the images. Your laboratory instruments that tell you how many lines this, and how many pixels that are also laid out according to a rectangular plan. They cannot be used to tell you anything about the superior nature of VHS when viewed by the human eye.
Those digitally mastered vinyl record show all the flaws that a CD shows.
You've got to have an analog master on your vinyl record.
And, digital movies are going to kill it. There's no way that the dynamic range of videotape can ever be used properly if the movie is just a bunch of ones and zeros.
Trust me, VHS is way better than any DVD.
What are magnetics for? I did some research, and I think they might be like transformers. Lots of tiny ones, in a little box. One for each wire on the interface.
For what? Impedance matching? Am I right or wrong.
You did just fine, because everything you wrote makes PERFECT sense to a true videophile. Intuitive viewing takes a long time to develop, similar to the sense that some people have for ingredients in food. One nibble, and they can tell you exactly what is in a dish, and just how the chef prepared it.
Your signature line says "written with DVORAK". Well, then I don't have to tell you this, but I guess that it's not intuitive. If you examine every single keyboard format, and compare QWERTY and Dvorak you find that the best typists are equally good on each one.
That's your laboratory test. And guess what? It tells you that QWERTY is just as good as Dvorak
But you and I know that's hogwash, and that Dvorak is superior. Why? Because there's no impedance mismatch between the fingers and the Dvorak keyboard.
Same with VHS. The harshness of a DVD is like watching a TV in the dark. The human eye reacts in a different way than instruments do, so all your numbers about how DVD's are better don't apply to the eye.
VHS has no impedance mismatch with the human eye, but DVD's do.
The superior quality of VHS is not something that you can detect with lab equipment, or calculate with math. Well, maybe with imaginary numbers possibly. Lab equipment just reacts differently than the human eye, so of course it will tell you that by the numbers a VHS tape will not be as good. But, if you believe the evidence of your eyes, your HUMAN eyes, then you will see that VHS is far far better than any digital signal could possibly be. DVD's just look cold and flat, and VHS has a human organic type warmth to it that is really subtle.
Well, if your cables are already high quality, then it must be your pickup head. It might be dirty. There are lots of other possibilities, for example, the tape itself might have dust or fingerprints on it. Or maybe the VCR itself is low quality. It's hard to find one with a tube amp, and they are very expensive, but worty it. If you can't see that VHS is much better than DVD, there's something wrong with the equipment, or maybe your video sense isn't as well tuned as you think it is.
The motor in the VCR takes a lot of current, and the thin wires in the stock power cord isn't up to the task. There are special power cords with really thick wire and gold plated connectors that can supply the current to the motor and help you realize the vast potential of VHS. Unless you have good equipment, you're never going to see that VHS is better than DVD.
I got some VHS tapes that are gold plated to eliminate electromagnetic distortion. You need good equipment to unleash the quality in your VHS. Only $150 per tape. I have a "Star Wars Special" - buy 6 (Stock up for the upcoming movid) for $600.