I'm fairly certain it was a political decision. Notice that the command center is in Houston. This is because Johnson, who succeded Kennedy) was from Texas and shipped some of the project 'home' (too late to move the entire program).
Part of the reason it is best to have the launch as far south (close to the equator) as possible. But politics trumps reason anytime.
You didn't notice a difference with pwcx? On my Logitech camera it was the difference between something like a 320x200 resolution vs. 640x480 resolution. I'd say that's significant.
He says there may still be legal issues, but is not sure. He's trying to maintain some trust between himself and the 'evil company'. It would be nice if they would formally allow him to open source though.
The last one is what you would copare to Windows. Redhat, Debian, SuSe, Mandrake, Gentoo; these all can most certainly handle large scale updates similar to SP2. Install an old debian cd sometime, and watch apt-get do it's thing. Or from an old Gentoo disk and watch emerge go (and go, and go). Most of which is rather seamless (or at least as seamless as SP2).
If you have a hard time running a Java application, it's the developers fault. There are PLENTY of ways to make it easy... easier than installing software on any other system.
This is partially true... To be a good Java developer also requires good shell/batch script writing (setting up the classpath, different java implementation specific switches, etc). I think it's a shame that Java is almost always jump-started by a script of some sort. It's "yet another barrier" to just writing Java.
Oh, god no! I just want it to behave more like 'libraries' under Linux/Unix. Let me edit/etc/java.conf to set which directories hold "libraries" (jar files). Java wants too much on the command line. One needs to be a good shell script writer (and/or batch script writer) as well as a Java developer as it is. Ever seen the weblogic startup scripts? *huge* shell script infrastructure just to setup all the correct params to java.
Just because you do not know how to properly use a tool does not make that tool bad. Every single modern J2EE application server starts up first time as soon as it is installed. The reason for this is simple, the people who wrote them, clearly unlike yourself, knew what they were doing.
And people think Java developers are arrogant. The fools!
Sure, the app server starts up fine. What the fuck does that give me? A running app server. Great. Uh huh. Fantastic. How about RUNNING A FRIGGING APP IN IT huh? You get to fight with XML files forever.
Oh, and why do those app servers 'just work'? Not because they were well written Java applications. But because they are well-written *shell scripts*. All Java developers are forced to be good shell/batch script writers. Nothing like a language that constantly needs to be jump-started by scripts.
CLASSPATH. This thing sucks. Worst design decision ever, I swear. Spend forever setting the frigging thing up, and hope to $DIETY things don't change. Oh, and make it so you need to reference individual.jar files too! What a great idea? What to add a library to your project? Be prepared to do battle with classpaths.
Anybody know why they decided to make it so you can't just put all.jar's in a *direcotry* referenced by CLASSPATH? I'd love my CLASSPATH to just be "/usr/local/java/lib:${HOME}/java/lib" or something rather than specifying a million.jar files...
I never minded the language itself. It's pretty easy to use, but I've never found other languages terribly difficult. The one thing that makes Java so much more damned difficult is the environment! Settting up a system to run a given Java application can be a nightmare (CLASSPATH anyone?).
Especially with large applications or J2EE containers. Just getting things to work can take a long time.
As an aside, I don't know why in the hell CLASSPATH has to refer to individual.jar's. Stupidest 'feature' of Java ever. Let it reference a directory containing.jar files, and load them as necessary. Then we can have/usr/local/java/lib or some such.
Also their marketing department is high on crack. Java 1.2 = java2? Next up, Java5 ?! WTF!!!
Best point you've made. Seriously, Sun's marketing depertment should be drawn and quartered. Java2, Java5, J2EE? J2SE? J2ME? Solaris versions vs. SunOS versions, putting the word 'java' on *everything*, etc.
Taxes are a prime example, and obviously you agree, of a laws being made for society, not for any ethical or moral reason.
If I'm so stupid, why do I realize that "for the good of society" is a moral argument and you don't? Why must morality be based on an individual? Ever think of taking a philosophy or ethics course?
Consider a life-raft that is full, with a man in the water. Should the people in the life raft try to save the man in the water they will capsize and all drown. If they don't save him, he will drown. They are faced with an *ethical decision* that effects the group.
Also, I was not trying to argue the morality of capital punishment you schmuck, but THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN ETHICAL DECISION. Remember? The original argument was whether laws were ethically based? I know, you're slow, but I'll try to type slowly. This of *all* laws is most certainly based on ethics (both pro and con have strong ethical reasons for their side). But apparently you can't see beyond the fucking nose on your face.
Even if they are a direct threat to your life? Even if they have commited numerous murders themselves? Even if they are an enemy during war? Even if they have raped and killed a young girl? Are you prepared to argue (logically) that killing somebody is *always* wrong? There are counter arguments, and many are good ones. You're a moron to think that 'killing is wrong' is an accepted truth. Capital punishment is very much based on ethics.
Taxes are a 'greater good' thing. The idea is that it is *good* for society for everyone to pool resources. This way the wealthy people help the poorer people, and we all benefit.
If I *am* "that stupid" you must be a fucking moron.
So you think the state should create laws arbitrarily and without regard to right and wrong? I think damned near everybody would have a problem with this.
Laws are not created to enforce all right and all wrong. HOWEVER, things that are illegal are so because they are "wrong" are they not? In other words, all illegal activity is wrong, but not all wrong activity is illegal. You have the relationship backwards I think...
Why is it illegal to drive without using your seatbelt? Is it wrong to not use your seatbelt? No, but it unfairly burdens the emergency response units in the community when some dumbass splatters his face on a tree because he didn't wear his seatbelt.
I think you just disproved your own point. Yes, it *is* imoral to not wear your seat belt for the reasons you've just stated (as well as others).:-) Perhaps you should have taken an intro to logic with that philosphy 101.
I also think you have the argument backwards. Laws are not made to enforce morality, however, morality is used to create laws. In other words, we don't create laws for *everything* we consider immoral. But everything we create a law against should be because it *is* immoral (murder, theft, etc.).
Also note the word 'should' and the relative nature of immoral (IOW I don't want to discuss the morality of existing laws - just whether morality should be used as a guide for laws).
but it is ridiculous that one of the most recognizable men in American politics gets flagged by the computer and no one can do anything about it because no one dare stick his neck out for fear of being "flagged" for termination from his job.
Have you seen the Senator in person often enough to be *sure* that who you're looking at is indeed a US senator, and not a close look-alike? Perhaps if you saw him every day, but people tend to look a bit different in real life than on TV (where most people have seen him).
I may not like the rules, but I'm proud the security personel were able to stand up to even a high ranking official to enforce their rules. Else the terrorists just find people who look like senators to carry out their plans (While yelling "Do you know who I am?")...
Many people from Gloucester Massachusetts or Worcester Massachusetts may be able to... Not to mention anyone from the 'Berkshires' in western Mass. Remember, y'all settled here in New England.
IBM asking for a permanent injunction against SCO *based on a clause in the GPL* isn't a test of the GPL in court? Are you sure you're posting to the right story?
It's funny how many people actually assume that 51% of the shares in a company are *available*. Just because you want to buy, doesn't mean the other guys want to sell.
Slashdot Mirror
Careful with that line. It's an antique.
I'm fairly certain it was a political decision. Notice that the command center is in Houston. This is because Johnson, who succeded Kennedy) was from Texas and shipped some of the project 'home' (too late to move the entire program).
Part of the reason it is best to have the launch as far south (close to the equator) as possible. But politics trumps reason anytime.
You didn't notice a difference with pwcx? On my Logitech camera it was the difference between something like a 320x200 resolution vs. 640x480 resolution. I'd say that's significant.
Please read *all* of this post:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/8/24/278
He says there may still be legal issues, but is not sure. He's trying to maintain some trust between himself and the 'evil company'. It would be nice if they would formally allow him to open source though.
But in the long run, do you want to have third party binary carbage in YOUR KERNEL?
Yes. I use a Phillips based camera. Now I will no longer be able to do so from Linux, and you're trying like hell to tell me this is Good(TM) for me.
That was over 200 years ago. You going to claim we hate the British because we were at war with them 200 years ago?
Linux != Open Source Community != Linux Distro
The last one is what you would copare to Windows. Redhat, Debian, SuSe, Mandrake, Gentoo; these all can most certainly handle large scale updates similar to SP2. Install an old debian cd sometime, and watch apt-get do it's thing. Or from an old Gentoo disk and watch emerge go (and go, and go). Most of which is rather seamless (or at least as seamless as SP2).
No.
If you have a hard time running a Java application, it's the developers fault. There are PLENTY of ways to make it easy... easier than installing software on any other system.
This is partially true... To be a good Java developer also requires good shell/batch script writing (setting up the classpath, different java implementation specific switches, etc). I think it's a shame that Java is almost always jump-started by a script of some sort. It's "yet another barrier" to just writing Java.
Oh, god no! I just want it to behave more like 'libraries' under Linux/Unix. Let me edit /etc/java.conf to set which directories hold "libraries" (jar files). Java wants too much on the command line. One needs to be a good shell script writer (and/or batch script writer) as well as a Java developer as it is. Ever seen the weblogic startup scripts? *huge* shell script infrastructure just to setup all the correct params to java.
Just because you do not know how to properly use a tool does not make that tool bad. Every single modern J2EE application server starts up first time as soon as it is installed. The reason for this is simple, the people who wrote them, clearly unlike yourself, knew what they were doing.
And people think Java developers are arrogant. The fools!
Sure, the app server starts up fine. What the fuck does that give me? A running app server. Great. Uh huh. Fantastic. How about RUNNING A FRIGGING APP IN IT huh? You get to fight with XML files forever.
Oh, and why do those app servers 'just work'? Not because they were well written Java applications. But because they are well-written *shell scripts*. All Java developers are forced to be good shell/batch script writers. Nothing like a language that constantly needs to be jump-started by scripts.
CLASSPATH. This thing sucks. Worst design decision ever, I swear. Spend forever setting the frigging thing up, and hope to $DIETY things don't change. Oh, and make it so you need to reference individual .jar files too! What a great idea? What to add a library to your project? Be prepared to do battle with classpaths.
.jar's in a *direcotry* referenced by CLASSPATH? I'd love my CLASSPATH to just be "/usr/local/java/lib:${HOME}/java/lib" or something rather than specifying a million .jar files...
Anybody know why they decided to make it so you can't just put all
I never minded the language itself. It's pretty easy to use, but I've never found other languages terribly difficult. The one thing that makes Java so much more damned difficult is the environment! Settting up a system to run a given Java application can be a nightmare (CLASSPATH anyone?).
.jar's. Stupidest 'feature' of Java ever. Let it reference a directory containing .jar files, and load them as necessary. Then we can have /usr/local/java/lib or some such.
Especially with large applications or J2EE containers. Just getting things to work can take a long time.
As an aside, I don't know why in the hell CLASSPATH has to refer to individual
Also their marketing department is high on crack. Java 1.2 = java2? Next up, Java5 ?! WTF!!!
Best point you've made. Seriously, Sun's marketing depertment should be drawn and quartered. Java2, Java5, J2EE? J2SE? J2ME? Solaris versions vs. SunOS versions, putting the word 'java' on *everything*, etc.
Taxes are a prime example, and obviously you agree, of a laws being made for society, not for any ethical or moral reason.
If I'm so stupid, why do I realize that "for the good of society" is a moral argument and you don't? Why must morality be based on an individual? Ever think of taking a philosophy or ethics course?
Consider a life-raft that is full, with a man in the water. Should the people in the life raft try to save the man in the water they will capsize and all drown. If they don't save him, he will drown. They are faced with an *ethical decision* that effects the group.
Also, I was not trying to argue the morality of capital punishment you schmuck, but THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN ETHICAL DECISION. Remember? The original argument was whether laws were ethically based? I know, you're slow, but I'll try to type slowly. This of *all* laws is most certainly based on ethics (both pro and con have strong ethical reasons for their side). But apparently you can't see beyond the fucking nose on your face.
IHBT I fear, this ends now.
It is wrong to kill someone
Even if they are a direct threat to your life? Even if they have commited numerous murders themselves? Even if they are an enemy during war? Even if they have raped and killed a young girl? Are you prepared to argue (logically) that killing somebody is *always* wrong? There are counter arguments, and many are good ones. You're a moron to think that 'killing is wrong' is an accepted truth. Capital punishment is very much based on ethics.
Taxes are a 'greater good' thing. The idea is that it is *good* for society for everyone to pool resources. This way the wealthy people help the poorer people, and we all benefit.
If I *am* "that stupid" you must be a fucking moron.
Copyright exists to encourage creativity.
...By giving the copyright holder an economic (monetary) advantage.
So you think the state should create laws arbitrarily and without regard to right and wrong? I think damned near everybody would have a problem with this.
Laws are not created to enforce all right and all wrong. HOWEVER, things that are illegal are so because they are "wrong" are they not? In other words, all illegal activity is wrong, but not all wrong activity is illegal. You have the relationship backwards I think...
Why is it illegal to drive without using your seatbelt? Is it wrong to not use your seatbelt? No, but it unfairly burdens the emergency response units in the community when some dumbass splatters his face on a tree because he didn't wear his seatbelt.
:-) Perhaps you should have taken an intro to logic with that philosphy 101.
I think you just disproved your own point. Yes, it *is* imoral to not wear your seat belt for the reasons you've just stated (as well as others).
I also think you have the argument backwards. Laws are not made to enforce morality, however, morality is used to create laws. In other words, we don't create laws for *everything* we consider immoral. But everything we create a law against should be because it *is* immoral (murder, theft, etc.).
Also note the word 'should' and the relative nature of immoral (IOW I don't want to discuss the morality of existing laws - just whether morality should be used as a guide for laws).
Mmm. Yes, the RNC. Not like the democrats would stifle freedom of expression. Never. Nope.
but it is ridiculous that one of the most recognizable men in American politics gets flagged by the computer and no one can do anything about it because no one dare stick his neck out for fear of being "flagged" for termination from his job.
Have you seen the Senator in person often enough to be *sure* that who you're looking at is indeed a US senator, and not a close look-alike? Perhaps if you saw him every day, but people tend to look a bit different in real life than on TV (where most people have seen him).
I may not like the rules, but I'm proud the security personel were able to stand up to even a high ranking official to enforce their rules. Else the terrorists just find people who look like senators to carry out their plans (While yelling "Do you know who I am?")...
Gloucestershire, Worcestershire
Many people from Gloucester Massachusetts or Worcester Massachusetts may be able to... Not to mention anyone from the 'Berkshires' in western Mass. Remember, y'all settled here in New England.
IBM asking for a permanent injunction against SCO *based on a clause in the GPL* isn't a test of the GPL in court? Are you sure you're posting to the right story?
I thought the infringment was more along the lines of charging a $699 license fee for Linux, which is very much against the GPL.
It's funny how many people actually assume that 51% of the shares in a company are *available*. Just because you want to buy, doesn't mean the other guys want to sell.