Valid as in possible to implement. How could a standard not be possible to implement you ask? Well that is simple. E.g. write a program that follows this standard: 1. It must print "1" on exit 2. It must print "2" on exit
As you can see, it would not be possible to implement a program according to that standard. That is why someone would need to write a reference application implementing the standard to notice errors like this. Before the standard is given to the whole world to be implemented.
It is better that only one has to wonder the errors of the standards, rather than the whole world.
You forgot that - People use different versions of Flash. - People have different resolutions. Normal font can be very tiny on some screens. - Some people don't have Flash at all.
> Oxygen, I think, is a product of photosynthesis, not an input
Yes, but majority of the plants don't produce sugar/starch just for fun. They also use it to grow. And for that, they need oxygen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiration
They don't have to follow the standard. They can use their own version of the standard. As no-one else will use the standard, they basicly can use the ISO standard as a marketing term, without actually following use.
> What about those of us who love our jobs and love to excel in them, but don't want to make work our entire life?
They are called average.
Programming is my life. I work as a programmer because that is an easy way to pay the bills. If I had enough money I would probably stop working, but I wouldn't stop programming.
- You can sell open source software e.g. with a manual . - You can make open source game, where only server fees are collected. Or you can sell the game with a paper manual and a nice box. - You can sell tailored software, which is provided to the customer as open source, e.g. the customer pays only for the programming work. I used to do this in my previous job all the time, except the software was never open source. But it would have not make a difference to the company to sell it as open source. - You can sell bug fixing/maintenance/tech support or feature adding services to existing code base.
- "Don't say services because services don't provide real cash flow." Google doesn't sell products, it sells services.
So software companies can make money. They just can't hold a weapon on your head and take all of your money. Basicly this means that people are probably more willing to buy more software and the quality of the software will increase, instead of everyone making their own version (Linux kernel vs. Unix-family).
You won't always get help as some problems are just too difficult to solve from remote location, but in most cases you get help and save yourself several hours of work if you just ask. So I strongly suggest you to ask help (if you already have not) as solving your problem in here is much harder than it is in a forum dedicated to solve your problems with Ubuntu:
- One warning message was fixed (but not a compiler warning if that was what you ment). - Two problems with new gcc versions were fixed.
But I don't understand what is wrong with fixing small errors or warnings. I have seen old projects that produce so many warning messages that it is impossible to spot the dangerous warnings from there. I actually started fixing warnings from one of these programs and find out fatal errors that could have caused program crash on quite normal error situations. So IMHO fixing warnings is just as important as fixing any other errors.
> You shouldn't have to look up instructions on how to change a basic setting.
That is what the help forums are for. So you can ask for help from there if you can't find it yourself. They can't put all the options to the GUI, because there are so many of them. Several people have told they they didn't like that setting at first, but they soon got used to it and after that they think it is wonderfull.
Perhaps everyone should give it a try and if it really is that bad, they should have enough motivation to ask for help how to remove it. Just bitch at Slashdot about how bad Firefox is because it can't do this or that and you should soon have 5 replies telling you how to do it.
The summary does sound quite bad, but if you read the article, it sounds actually much better.
"At the moment, these are two separate projects Mozilla is running to push out the edges of the browser: Prism and Weave."
"Prism Prism is Mozilla's shot at busting apps out of the browser. Part of the Prism project is making the browsing core available to apps developers so they can build products like Zimbra Desktop (review) that are essentially Web apps, but that don't look like it. "
"Weave Weave extends the browser in the other direction: Not toward the desktop, but instead into the Internet. Mozilla wants an individual's browsing experience to stay with them no matter what machine they are on."
You forgot to comment about SQLite, which is donated to public domain by authors of the software.
If someone claims that it isn't charity either. Then I have to say that there is no such thing as charity. You always get something in return, no matter do you do good or bad.
> I'm at work right now, and I've installed Firefox, a bunch of extensions, AntiVir
Avira AntiVir Personal - FREE Antivirus "Basic protection: Protects your computer against dangerous viruses, worms, Trojans and costly dialers. Not for Commercial or Business use."
I would assume that work is considered commercial or business use. Or did you pay for the antivir?
> 1) a gaming PC is substantially more expensive than a console
Not if you already have a computer and you get the games for free
> 2) you frequently have driver and other compatibility problems
Not if you are using Linux.
> 3) a number of PC games are launched in a rather buggy state
And they get updates. I remember playing console games that had quite a few bugs but never got any updates.
> 4) the overall performance level of consoles has improved a lot in the latest generation
PCs have improved also.
> Linux gaming is even more dead because it's a very small subset of PC gaming with a lot of complexities that make support very difficult
All you need to do is to use SDL/OpenGL and the rest is quite trivial. Usually a bug that can be only seen on one platform, is still a clear error in the source code. It actually helps improving the quality of the software if you compile and test it on multiple platforms.
> who the hell wants to spend their life researching or fund researching it if there is not money in it?
Who the hell wants to spend their life on developing free open source software? That's right, lots of people. Some people actually can and will care more about the human kind than themselves. And some people might even want to find a cure for someone they know.
Optimal solution would be that all countries would give money into same pool, where money would then be shared for research projects that would research new medicine and publish everything in public domain. This would mean two things: - cheaper medicine as anyone could manufacture them - faster research as all information would be public - Less money spend on medicine marketing
So in short this would: - Take money from the super rich (owners of the med companies) to the poor (users of medicine). - Keep people more healthy (as med research speed would increase) - Take money from marketing to research (if same amount of money would be used)
Obviously it would not be easy to establish such a contract, especially since a lot of (med company) money would be spend on lobbying people against it. But it is nice to dream.
Slashdot Mirror
Gallon of fuel: 3 dollars
Getting it to space: 3000 dollars
> Wha? Valid in what respects?
Valid as in possible to implement. How could a standard not be possible to implement you ask? Well that is simple. E.g. write a program that follows this standard:
1. It must print "1" on exit
2. It must print "2" on exit
As you can see, it would not be possible to implement a program according to that standard. That is why someone would need to write a reference application implementing the standard to notice errors like this. Before the standard is given to the whole world to be implemented.
It is better that only one has to wonder the errors of the standards, rather than the whole world.
You forgot that
- People use different versions of Flash.
- People have different resolutions. Normal font can be very tiny on some screens.
- Some people don't have Flash at all.
So there goes your control.
> Oxygen, I think, is a product of photosynthesis, not an input
Yes, but majority of the plants don't produce sugar/starch just for fun. They also use it to grow. And for that, they need oxygen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiration
Water on Moon has not yet been proven, but it is still possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_ice
I don't see the lack of CO2 as a problem. Let's just place a few humans there to produce CO2. Or if that is not acceptable, perhaps animals.
Well, actually majority of the plants need also oxygen, but there are some plants which don't need it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant#Growth
No
Yes
AFAIK Google's catchpas were hacked by humans, not apps.
How about making a new version of ODF that supports it? We have a standard. If it needs to be improved, it can be improved.
They don't have to follow the standard. They can use their own version of the standard. As no-one else will use the standard, they basicly can use the ISO standard as a marketing term, without actually following use.
> What about those of us who love our jobs and love to excel in them, but don't want to make work our entire life?
They are called average.
Programming is my life. I work as a programmer because that is an easy way to pay the bills. If I had enough money I would probably stop working, but I wouldn't stop programming.
It is based on PCLinuxOS ("free, easy-to-use Linux-based operating system for the home"), which is based on Mandriva.
- You can sell open source software e.g. with a manual .
- You can make open source game, where only server fees are collected. Or you can sell the game with a paper manual and a nice box.
- You can sell tailored software, which is provided to the customer as open source, e.g. the customer pays only for the programming work. I used to do this in my previous job all the time, except the software was never open source. But it would have not make a difference to the company to sell it as open source.
- You can sell bug fixing/maintenance/tech support or feature adding services to existing code base.
- "Don't say services because services don't provide real cash flow." Google doesn't sell products, it sells services.
So software companies can make money. They just can't hold a weapon on your head and take all of your money. Basicly this means that people are probably more willing to buy more software and the quality of the software will increase, instead of everyone making their own version (Linux kernel vs. Unix-family).
You won't always get help as some problems are just too difficult to solve from remote location, but in most cases you get help and save yourself several hours of work if you just ask. So I strongly suggest you to ask help (if you already have not) as solving your problem in here is much harder than it is in a forum dedicated to solve your problems with Ubuntu:
http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=132
Here you go:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.24.4
- One warning message was fixed (but not a compiler warning if that was what you ment).
- Two problems with new gcc versions were fixed.
But I don't understand what is wrong with fixing small errors or warnings. I have seen old projects that produce so many warning messages that it is impossible to spot the dangerous warnings from there. I actually started fixing warnings from one of these programs and find out fatal errors that could have caused program crash on quite normal error situations. So IMHO fixing warnings is just as important as fixing any other errors.
> You shouldn't have to look up instructions on how to change a basic setting.
That is what the help forums are for. So you can ask for help from there if you can't find it yourself. They can't put all the options to the GUI, because there are so many of them. Several people have told they they didn't like that setting at first, but they soon got used to it and after that they think it is wonderfull.
Perhaps everyone should give it a try and if it really is that bad, they should have enough motivation to ask for help how to remove it. Just bitch at Slashdot about how bad Firefox is because it can't do this or that and you should soon have 5 replies telling you how to do it.
The summary does sound quite bad, but if you read the article, it sounds actually much better.
"At the moment, these are two separate projects Mozilla is running to push out the edges of the browser: Prism and Weave."
"Prism
Prism is Mozilla's shot at busting apps out of the browser. Part of the Prism project is making the browsing core available to apps developers so they can build products like Zimbra Desktop (review) that are essentially Web apps, but that don't look like it. "
"Weave
Weave extends the browser in the other direction: Not toward the desktop, but instead into the Internet. Mozilla wants an individual's browsing experience to stay with them no matter what machine they are on."
Usually these features can be disabled quite easily from the about:config.
You forgot to comment about SQLite, which is donated to public domain by authors of the software.
If someone claims that it isn't charity either. Then I have to say that there is no such thing as charity. You always get something in return, no matter do you do good or bad.
> I'm at work right now, and I've installed Firefox, a bunch of extensions, AntiVir
Avira AntiVir Personal - FREE Antivirus "Basic protection: Protects your computer against dangerous viruses, worms, Trojans and costly dialers. Not for Commercial or Business use."
I would assume that work is considered commercial or business use. Or did you pay for the antivir?
Forget skynet. These things are replicators. Not even the Asgards can beat them without the help of 4 humans.
> 1) a gaming PC is substantially more expensive than a console
Not if you already have a computer and you get the games for free
> 2) you frequently have driver and other compatibility problems
Not if you are using Linux.
> 3) a number of PC games are launched in a rather buggy state
And they get updates. I remember playing console games that had quite a few bugs but never got any updates.
> 4) the overall performance level of consoles has improved a lot in the latest generation
PCs have improved also.
> Linux gaming is even more dead because it's a very small subset of PC gaming with a lot of complexities that make support very difficult
All you need to do is to use SDL/OpenGL and the rest is quite trivial. Usually a bug that can be only seen on one platform, is still a clear error in the source code. It actually helps improving the quality of the software if you compile and test it on multiple platforms.
Not sure, but it probably has something to do with miscalculation.
> who the hell wants to spend their life researching or fund researching it if there is not money in it?
Who the hell wants to spend their life on developing free open source software? That's right, lots of people. Some people actually can and will care more about the human kind than themselves. And some people might even want to find a cure for someone they know.
Optimal solution would be that all countries would give money into same pool, where money would then be shared for research projects that would research new medicine and publish everything in public domain. This would mean two things:
- cheaper medicine as anyone could manufacture them
- faster research as all information would be public
- Less money spend on medicine marketing
So in short this would:
- Take money from the super rich (owners of the med companies) to the poor (users of medicine).
- Keep people more healthy (as med research speed would increase)
- Take money from marketing to research (if same amount of money would be used)
Obviously it would not be easy to establish such a contract, especially since a lot of (med company) money would be spend on lobbying people against it. But it is nice to dream.
> Did it run Linux?
Actually these planes (like almost all of the modern planes) have windows.