You want MS to provide a linux version so that you can either state your intent to never install it, or so that you can sh*t on it? I'm sure they'll get right on that...
I assume yes. Call me naive, but I suspect MS know that they have more to lose by breaking web standards. Basically, they can't get away with that sh*t anymore - at least as far as the web goes. The average user is probably no wiser, but there are enough special interest groups to keep an eye on them in this area.
'We're not taking up all the bandwidth waiting for acknowledgments,' he says. Since there is an inherent trade-off between the amount of available bandwidth and the distance that a signal can travel, the more bandwidth is available, the farther a signal can travel.
I'm confused - in what way are bandwidth and the distance a signal can travel related?
The libraries you need to use were given freely by others, who could also have decided to charge $5, making it impossible for you to afford the purchase.
One could argue the case for a difference between a library and an application that makes use of the library, and that the latter could be charged for, but IMHO that would profoundly affect what OS is.
It's not an appalling idea. Developers everywhere would have free access to high quality libraries, and would have an incentive to improve those libraries, and an obligation to make the modified libraries available. However, they could still charge for applications that implemented the libraries.
Like I said, not appalling, but a big change (and I'd be surprised if there isn't some variant of a OS licence that doesn't already do this).
Err, who told you that monkeys were an intermediate life form? They are not. Man, apes and monkeys (indeed all primates) are descended from a common ancestor; man and apes are also descended from a common ancestor, but a more recent one than the common ancestor for all primates.
As for missing fossil evidence - this is fundy bait and switch. Many intermediary fossils have been found. Queue the response from the fundys: "ah, but where are the intermediary fossils between the fossils you've just found?"
Actually, I was wondering about this. Radiosity isn't a huge problem for raytracing - correction, it is a huge problem for raytracing, so raytracers that implement radiosity generally use a separate process.
Does rasterisation get radiosity "for free" or is it yet another process that has to be implemented?
If the latter, then this can't really count against raytracing.
If so, feel free to expand, otherwise I can't help but feel that you're missing the point.
Yes, plain vanilla raytracing has many inefficiencies, but so would a car without gears. All current raytracers implement various strategies for speeding up rendering (bounding boxes being the most obvious).
As others have said (and partially covered in TFA), the advantage of raytracing is that it simulates a real-world process (albeit ass-backwards - i.e. light is traced from the viewpoint to the lightsource(s), rather than visa-versa), and therefore many effects that are buggy, difficult or impossible for traditional graphic engines are simplified.
It's a German tax thing. Basically, everyone wins whether or not the films make any money - if the film loses money, the investors get a generous write-off, and if it makes money, the investors pay less tax on the profit than they would have on the original investment (it's a reward for investing in film).
"It also makes sense since IIS servers are more likely to be serving the much less secure IE client."
That has to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever read. I'm not even going to bother commenting on the minor idiocy of thinking that this is an MS vulnerability, since others have already done that in relation to other posts, but your final comment is just deranged.
It's like suggesting that Sony artists are more likely to be listened to on a Sony CD player than non-Sony artists. Just really, really silly.
Reading the article, it doesn't look like it has much in the way of teeth with respect to Wi-Fi. There is no indication that you are required to monitor the wi-fi connection for such material, or, that in the absence of any such monitoring, that you would be responsible.
Do you honestly think arguments like yours are doing anything towards promoting OS or linux?
They are a business. They are not in it to "support" OS - if anything it's OS that should support businesses.
By your argument, I can only assume that you would rather see them install windows on these machines rather than taint your precious OS ideals with their money-making shenanigans...
You understand correctly. As for excuses (assuming they've actually done anything "wrong", which doesn't seem to be completely certain), in order of significance:
It was a mistake or oversight, and will be rectified
Killing the eee over this would do greater damage to the cause of free software (and linux) than ignoring a minor transgression
Now, the last is a slight strawman arguement - well, I'd like to think so, but the reaction of some on these boards makes me wonder. I can't help thinking that what ought to be happening is that the FSF or similiar ought to be contacting ASUS, congratulating them on the eee, gently pointing out the issues, and offering to help resolve the problems. Instead, we seem to be acting out a scene from Life of Brian.
Yes, because it's quite clear that what ASUS did is truely evil and without any possible excuse. Those bastards - they sell a nice linux-laptop for kids and then ruin it all by forgetting to include the full source. Possibly. Not sure. Maybe they did.
Evil, I tell you, evil.
I've even ordered one of these for my kids - they're going to be heartbroken when I have to tell them about the missing source for asus_acpi. They were really looking forward to that.
Oh, wait. It's fine. I've got a sense of perspective. Phew!
Hmm, not sure I agree regarding scalability. "Editors" in one sense already exist on wikipedia. We tend to adopt articles and keep an eye on them - mostly reverts of vandalism. The only problem, IMHO, would be if they place the editor-bar too high....
... and I have no idea what is so significant about being first, or why you assume that wikipedia will always be a better source of information...
I have a love/hate relationship with wikipedia, as, I suspect, most people do who have contributed over a period of time. Coping with vandals, coping with trolls, aggressive nationalists and other assorted weirdos - half the time I wonder why I bother... the incentive to craft and hone an article under those circs. is very weak.
Okay, it's "possible" that the data was stolen, but highly unlikely.
AFAIK we need the original crooks to either be experts AND know that they didn't want to change access times*, etc. (bare in mind that they don't initially know that there's valuable stuff on the HD) OR to not turn on the PC, but instead sell it directly to identity thieves who know what they are doing. These guys then take the risk of reselling the item in the hope that it's recovered, but that their actions are not noticed, in the hope of fooling the FBI.
IMHO the chain of events that ends up with the PC recovered and no dodgy access times is just so unlikely as to be reasonably discounted. Occam's razor indeed. Tin hats off.
* BTW it seems safe to assume that, unless the PC was never turned on during the entire time it was missing, that the access times of some files were changed.
WTF! Uh, so if I give you a free dog that pisses in your beer and eats your kids, it's better than any dog you paid for?
Look, OO is either better or worse than MSO (and "better" could cover a multitude of virtues), but the old "it's free, so don't complain" is a very stupid arguement that really, really should not be made anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Curious - the reply has an earlier timestamp than the parent.
You want MS to provide a linux version so that you can either state your intent to never install it, or so that you can sh*t on it? I'm sure they'll get right on that...
I assume yes. Call me naive, but I suspect MS know that they have more to lose by breaking web standards. Basically, they can't get away with that sh*t anymore - at least as far as the web goes. The average user is probably no wiser, but there are enough special interest groups to keep an eye on them in this area.
The thought had occurred.
I'd make anti-lead if I was them - much less ambiguous.
You did dilute it with sugar and water, didn't you? (I'd recommend at least 1:5)
A nice drink, but overrated. The way people go on about it, you'd think it was salvia.
The summary says:
I'm confused - in what way are bandwidth and the distance a signal can travel related?
Heh - having now read up on the LGPL, I'm feeling a bit silly. On the plus-side, yay me! I reinvented the wheel!
Your argument doesn't make much sense.
The libraries you need to use were given freely by others, who could also have decided to charge $5, making it impossible for you to afford the purchase.
One could argue the case for a difference between a library and an application that makes use of the library, and that the latter could be charged for, but IMHO that would profoundly affect what OS is.
It's not an appalling idea. Developers everywhere would have free access to high quality libraries, and would have an incentive to improve those libraries, and an obligation to make the modified libraries available. However, they could still charge for applications that implemented the libraries.
Like I said, not appalling, but a big change (and I'd be surprised if there isn't some variant of a OS licence that doesn't already do this).
God, I loved WP for DOS (was it 5.1? Ah, distant memories...)
Last f***ing word processor that actually did what I wanted it to, when I wanted it to.
"high intelligence and tool-making" vs "living in tall trees"
Sh*t - we lost
Err, who told you that monkeys were an intermediate life form? They are not. Man, apes and monkeys (indeed all primates) are descended from a common ancestor; man and apes are also descended from a common ancestor, but a more recent one than the common ancestor for all primates.
As for missing fossil evidence - this is fundy bait and switch. Many intermediary fossils have been found. Queue the response from the fundys: "ah, but where are the intermediary fossils between the fossils you've just found?"
... by the fact that news.bbc.co.uk is asking for comments from anyone affected. Paraplegics, take one step forward...
Actually, I was wondering about this. Radiosity isn't a huge problem for raytracing - correction, it is a huge problem for raytracing, so raytracers that implement radiosity generally use a separate process.
Does rasterisation get radiosity "for free" or is it yet another process that has to be implemented?
If the latter, then this can't really count against raytracing.
Do you actually know what you are talking about?
If so, feel free to expand, otherwise I can't help but feel that you're missing the point.
Yes, plain vanilla raytracing has many inefficiencies, but so would a car without gears. All current raytracers implement various strategies for speeding up rendering (bounding boxes being the most obvious).
As others have said (and partially covered in TFA), the advantage of raytracing is that it simulates a real-world process (albeit ass-backwards - i.e. light is traced from the viewpoint to the lightsource(s), rather than visa-versa), and therefore many effects that are buggy, difficult or impossible for traditional graphic engines are simplified.
It's a German tax thing. Basically, everyone wins whether or not the films make any money - if the film loses money, the investors get a generous write-off, and if it makes money, the investors pay less tax on the profit than they would have on the original investment (it's a reward for investing in film).
Hang on, here's a link: How the flick does boll keep making movies
"It also makes sense since IIS servers are more likely to be serving the much less secure IE client."
That has to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever read. I'm not even going to bother commenting on the minor idiocy of thinking that this is an MS vulnerability, since others have already done that in relation to other posts, but your final comment is just deranged.
It's like suggesting that Sony artists are more likely to be listened to on a Sony CD player than non-Sony artists. Just really, really silly.
Reading the article, it doesn't look like it has much in the way of teeth with respect to Wi-Fi. There is no indication that you are required to monitor the wi-fi connection for such material, or, that in the absence of any such monitoring, that you would be responsible.
Jesus f***ing wept.
Do you honestly think arguments like yours are doing anything towards promoting OS or linux?
They are a business. They are not in it to "support" OS - if anything it's OS that should support businesses.
By your argument, I can only assume that you would rather see them install windows on these machines rather than taint your precious OS ideals with their money-making shenanigans...
You understand correctly. As for excuses (assuming they've actually done anything "wrong", which doesn't seem to be completely certain), in order of significance:
Now, the last is a slight strawman arguement - well, I'd like to think so, but the reaction of some on these boards makes me wonder. I can't help thinking that what ought to be happening is that the FSF or similiar ought to be contacting ASUS, congratulating them on the eee, gently pointing out the issues, and offering to help resolve the problems. Instead, we seem to be acting out a scene from Life of Brian.
Yes, because it's quite clear that what ASUS did is truely evil and without any possible excuse. Those bastards - they sell a nice linux-laptop for kids and then ruin it all by forgetting to include the full source. Possibly. Not sure. Maybe they did.
Evil, I tell you, evil.
I've even ordered one of these for my kids - they're going to be heartbroken when I have to tell them about the missing source for asus_acpi. They were really looking forward to that.
Oh, wait. It's fine. I've got a sense of perspective. Phew!
...when I had to write a quick-n-dirty wiki attachment search tool..
.= $twiki;
/,v$/i and /.+\.$search_ext$/i){ /$searchterm/){ /$searchterm/i){ /$searchterm/){ /$searchterm/i){
# perform search, checking if fname_only, cs, etc.,
# stripping non-printable ascii
sub DoSearch{
my $path = $searchpath;
$path
find({wanted=>\&wanted,
untaint=>1,untaint_pattern=>'^([\040-\176]*)$',untaint_skip=>1},
@twikipaths);
sub wanted{
if($_ !~
if($cs &&
push @matched_files, $File::Find::name;
}
elsif(!$cs &&
push @matched_files, $File::Find::name;
}
elsif(!$fname_only){
open(DOC, $File::Find::name)||
die "Couldn't open $File::Find::name:$!\n";
THISFILE: while(my $line = <DOC>){
$line =~ s/[^\011\012\015\040-\176]//g;
if($cs && $line =~
close DOC;
push @matched_files, $File::Find::name;
last THISFILE;
}
elsif(!$cs && $line =~
close DOC;
push @matched_files, $File::Find::name;
last THISFILE;
}
}
}
}
}
}
Hmm, not sure I agree regarding scalability. "Editors" in one sense already exist on wikipedia. We tend to adopt articles and keep an eye on them - mostly reverts of vandalism. The only problem, IMHO, would be if they place the editor-bar too high....
... and I have no idea what is so significant about being first, or why you assume that wikipedia will always be a better source of information...
I have a love/hate relationship with wikipedia, as, I suspect, most people do who have contributed over a period of time. Coping with vandals, coping with trolls, aggressive nationalists and other assorted weirdos - half the time I wonder why I bother... the incentive to craft and hone an article under those circs. is very weak.
Okay, it's "possible" that the data was stolen, but highly unlikely.
AFAIK we need the original crooks to either be experts AND know that they didn't want to change access times*, etc. (bare in mind that they don't initially know that there's valuable stuff on the HD) OR to not turn on the PC, but instead sell it directly to identity thieves who know what they are doing. These guys then take the risk of reselling the item in the hope that it's recovered, but that their actions are not noticed, in the hope of fooling the FBI.
IMHO the chain of events that ends up with the PC recovered and no dodgy access times is just so unlikely as to be reasonably discounted. Occam's razor indeed. Tin hats off.
* BTW it seems safe to assume that, unless the PC was never turned on during the entire time it was missing, that the access times of some files were changed.
WTF! Uh, so if I give you a free dog that pisses in your beer and eats your kids, it's better than any dog you paid for?
Look, OO is either better or worse than MSO (and "better" could cover a multitude of virtues), but the old "it's free, so don't complain" is a very stupid arguement that really, really should not be made anymore.
Really.