You know, I never thought about it, but "Internet Explorer" really is an appropriate name.
It recalls to mind the Age of Exploration- go out into the great unknown (the Internet), catch interesting and horrible diseases, and bring them back home triumphantly along with useless trinkets from far-away lands (lolcats anyone?).
Cable subscribers, forget what it says in the small print. You signed a contract that said "unlimited" in BOLD print. The real bitch of it is that you can't ignore the small print, not if you want to do something about it.
Sorry, that argument doesn't work. It just moves the stupid over a little bit. 60% were too stupid to even go vote.
You are aware that some people living in the States are not actually *eligible* to vote, right? About 30 of that 60% total that didn't vote weren't even eligible. Voter turnout was actually a little under 2/3.
I mean really - that George Bush could be considered a viable candidate indicates that way too many knuckledragging retards live there. Well, in the last presidential election, about 40% of the total population actually turned out to vote and less than 21% actually voted for Bush*. This is before you factor in election fraud. With circumstances like that, I don't think the results of presidential elections are a useful metric of a country's stupidity.
I can't tell you how many IT people claim to have "tried linux and it is too experimental/incomplete/unstable/whatever". Then, I ask them a little more about their experience and find that they tried the wrong distro,
Which one is the "right" distro? How is anybody supposed to be able to figure out which one is the "right" distro without dedicating a third of their life for two months trying them all? Ask somebody who has some idea, maybe? Check distrowatch? Check with their local lug if they don't personally know anybody to ask?
I personally don't even get why there are more than three distros: KDE, GNOME and "other/roll your own". What's the point of 26 distros, all of which use GNOME as a desktop environment, when all you end up seeing is GNOME? Different package management architectures, different software philosophies, different itches in general. Debian wasn't scratching Shuttleworth's itch, so he made Ubuntu. SLS didn't scratch Ian Murdock's itch, so he started Debian. As long as there are at least 26 different uses you might put your computer to, you'll have at least 26 different distros to do those different things in.
Anyway, desktop environment is probably the least important choice you can make when putting together a distribution. Who cares if you're using KDE or GNOME or XFCE if package management is a nightmare?
He did make a very good point. Do Linux distributions actually expect users to try each desktop manager for a week and then choose the "best" one for each person? Even Ubuntu (the easy one) is available in both flavors... why? This is why we have defaults. Sure, there are two (more, actually) Ubuntu flavours, but if you go to the Ubuntu website, the other spins are only mentioned in a little sidebar at the bottom of the page. They're hardly prominent.
For "normal" OSes, the established desktop ones, the desktop environment is part of the OS. Doesn't that just make much more sense? Like I said above, there only really needs to be 3 actual Linux distros, since 99% of the time the users will interact with nothing but the desktop environment anyway. The desktop is a part of the OS. You don't seem to have quite grasped that each distribution is an actual operating system.
Oh, and If 99% of the time, you're dealing with your DE and not the applications you want to use, there's something seriously broken with either your workflow or your operating system.
What's more, just about none of the more popularLinux distributions have packages available for free download and install using your system's package manager.
You won't need a license to go digging through your own hard drive. What you do need a license for is to go digging through other people's hard drives. That seems like a good thing. Among other things, it probably means that Best Buy can't go on fishing expeditions through your hard drives anymore. Given the particular law being reported on, it doesn't even prevent you from digging through other people's hard drives.
It does, however, prevent you from presenting what you find in a court of law in South Carolina unless you're also a licensed PI, or are collecting through a licensed PI agency.
I'm not really sure what concern this legislation addresses, honestly. If there's a question as to the reliability and relevance of an expert witness and/or their testimony, you can initiate a Daubert motion to have the evidence thrown out before the trial even starts. Problem solved.
"As people are approaching a port of inspection, they can show the card to the reader, and by the time they get to the inspector, all the information will have been verified and they can be waved on through," said Ann Barrett, deputy assistant secretary of state for passport services, commenting on the final rule on passport cards published yesterday in the Federal Register.
Hahahahaha. You have got to be fucking kidding me. I have been the United States on two separate occasions via air in the last few years and in both cases neither myself nor any of my fellow passengers were ever "waved on through" inspection. Everybody got the royal ass raping treatment and this comment by Ann Barrett is just a bureaucratic pie-in-the-sky sales job for the new passports. Given that these are US passports, being issued to US citizens, I think the idea is that it's supposed to expedite the reentry process for US citizens.
Being a US citizen who's reentered the country via air (I'm assuming you're not a US citizen), I can tell you the treatment you get is significantly different to the treatment non-US citizens get. They made sure my passport photo looked like me and asked if I was smuggling livestock into the country. That's it.
Maybe the difference is contributed to by the fact the customs and border patrol are basically schizophrenic? I live not far from the US-Canada border, and on reentry to the US I've gotten everything from "Oh, look, you have a passport, I'm sure it's yours, no need to look at it, have a nice day," to having me and everyone else in the vehicle lined up, our documents inspected, interviewed ("What were you doing in Canada? It's not like there's anything anybody could want up there!"), and required to officially make a declaration of any articles acquired in Canada.
Xine can play it (as can anything that can use Xine as a backend, i.e. Totem, Kaffiene). There's also Nosefart. However my Xine-fu is not strong enough to surmise if there's an easy way to convert it such as foobar2000 has. Xine has an option to output to a wav. I think it's "-A file".
I don't know if it outputs to anything other than wav, though if it didn't you could transcode the wav later or even just have it output to a named pipe that, say, oggenc was reading from at the same time.
I agree with the other poster who suggested that these LCDs are coming to police riot shields near you. That's just too cool an idea to pass up. Shove enough images of flowers and frolicking puppies in their faces, and the Black Bloc crowd will surrender without a fight, right? Why show puppies and flowers when you can sell that space for advertising?
Naturally section 3 doesn't apply here so its either 1 or 2. 1 states that they need to make it available, 2 says that they need to offer it. Which brings me to the following point; can anyone of these users grab the source code from the Xandros website itself? Because if they can then I don't really see anything wrong here. Note; we were talking about the spirit of the GPL right? If users can get the sourcecode somewhere else I don't see any violations being made. As long as Asus makes sure that this situation remains and that if those other mirrors someday stop distributing this software takes over. According the GNU GPL FAQ, it's not enough that the source should simply be available somewhere on the Internet. ASUS has to identify the place to get the source and have arrangements to keep the relevant source there. They may have arrangements with Xandros, but it doesn't count unless they tell their users where to get the source.
Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?
The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".
Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries available.
Oh yeah, rsync. Is that one still broken on 10.5? Apple's build of rsync on 10.4 consistently choked on a few files when my dad started using it on his Mac Pro. Is there something preventing you from just building it yourself?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not trolling here and just assume that you're cynical and have little experience with the system. Voters can absolutely make a difference. The faults you point out lie with voters, as politicians can get away with quite a lot due to voter apathy. If the people were more engaged, and less forgetful, you would see fewer incumbents winning elections who don't keep campaign promises. Perhaps you could get a better picture of how things work on the local level. I happen to live in an area where many constituents are very engaged in the process. They pressure their politicians on issues, and elect those who support and follow through with their issues. there are some office holders around here who are quite popular because they followed through on campaign promises to support issues important to constituents around here.
Saying you can't make a difference is a nice excuse in an attempt to justify apathy or laziness. I can appreciate being frustrated for having views contrary to the majority and thus not having policies in place you agree with, but this means you just have your work cut out for you in convincing others of the value in your ideas. It doesn't mean politicians have power we couldn't take away if we all really wanted to. Apathy is the culprit, no the system. The system is entirely the problem if the presence of public apathy is self-evident (which it should be for things on the scale of Federal decisions) but not accounted for.
They want it because the price is unbeatable.
It's just that it has an annoying license that they have to work around, in order to be able to sufficiently hamstring their users.
See, that's never made much sense to me. Why don't they just pick up a gratis operating system with a more permissive license, like one of the BSD's, and stop worrying about tivoizing GPL'ed code?
Or are they actually just evil and want to lock down GPL'ed code because it fills their weekly evil quota or something?
That was akin to my first thought: If opensource code is really so superior to closed source code, and if the world would be better off if all apps had been built from those codebases, then shouldn't we *encourage* it to be "pirated", for everyone's net benefit??
One of the strengths of open source is that improvements are shared. If one company just makes some improvements to an open source project and then redistributes it in a way that violates the terms of the license designed to keep it open, that only completely undermines that strength. Open source code isn't necessarily superior. It's the development model of open source.
Either way, it's a pretty shitty thing for a company to do. Just follow the damn license. It isn't hard.
According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any object beyond the speed of light.
Actually, if I recall it correctly, it was more of a limitation of SToR. You started having to divide by imaginary numbers once you started plugging in velocities above c. Even with a velocity of c, SToR stopped making sense because then you had to divide by 0.
If you finish the paragraph, you'll find your answer.
It's not that different from what id has been doing, but Carmack's been keeping the engine proprietary for a few years to make money from licensing and then it gets GPL'ed. I have zero problem with that.
Here's another neat part of the presidential elections, beyond the massive voter fraud:
around 21% of the US population's ballots were for Bush in the last election. 60% of the population were either ineligible or didn't actually cast a ballot even though they could.
40% voted, 21% in total voted for Bush.
Even if we assume that there was no fraud (ha!), a smidgen over 1/5 of the US population did something stupid, and now the entire US population is vilified forever for it.
Is it just me, or does this sound like it has the potential to allow booting custom kernels? BootX is the name of the bootloader in Mac OS X, after all. fsboot also has potential if you can overwrite/kernelcache.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I never thought about it, but "Internet Explorer" really is an appropriate name.
It recalls to mind the Age of Exploration- go out into the great unknown (the Internet), catch interesting and horrible diseases, and bring them back home triumphantly along with useless trinkets from far-away lands (lolcats anyone?).
70,000 years of oral tradition? Stories about gods like Enki and Enlil barely survived 5,000 years and they had the benefit of written records.
I doubt any story would make it through 70,000 years of oral tradition recognizably.
Sorry, that argument doesn't work. It just moves the stupid over a little bit. 60% were too stupid to even go vote.
You are aware that some people living in the States are not actually *eligible* to vote, right? About 30 of that 60% total that didn't vote weren't even eligible. Voter turnout was actually a little under 2/3.Which one is the "right" distro? How is anybody supposed to be able to figure out which one is the "right" distro without dedicating a third of their life for two months trying them all?
Ask somebody who has some idea, maybe? Check distrowatch? Check with their local lug if they don't personally know anybody to ask? I personally don't even get why there are more than three distros: KDE, GNOME and "other/roll your own". What's the point of 26 distros, all of which use GNOME as a desktop environment, when all you end up seeing is GNOME? Different package management architectures, different software philosophies, different itches in general. Debian wasn't scratching Shuttleworth's itch, so he made Ubuntu. SLS didn't scratch Ian Murdock's itch, so he started Debian. As long as there are at least 26 different uses you might put your computer to, you'll have at least 26 different distros to do those different things in.
Anyway, desktop environment is probably the least important choice you can make when putting together a distribution. Who cares if you're using KDE or GNOME or XFCE if package management is a nightmare? He did make a very good point. Do Linux distributions actually expect users to try each desktop manager for a week and then choose the "best" one for each person? Even Ubuntu (the easy one) is available in both flavors... why?
This is why we have defaults. Sure, there are two (more, actually) Ubuntu flavours, but if you go to the Ubuntu website, the other spins are only mentioned in a little sidebar at the bottom of the page. They're hardly prominent.
For "normal" OSes, the established desktop ones, the desktop environment is part of the OS. Doesn't that just make much more sense? Like I said above, there only really needs to be 3 actual Linux distros, since 99% of the time the users will interact with nothing but the desktop environment anyway.
The desktop is a part of the OS. You don't seem to have quite grasped that each distribution is an actual operating system.
Oh, and If 99% of the time, you're dealing with your DE and not the applications you want to use, there's something seriously broken with either your workflow or your operating system.
I mean, what's the deal with them not using freely-available cross-platform tools to make it easy to build on your platform of choice if you don't use it on one of those?
What's more, just about none of the more popular Linux distributions have packages available for free download and install using your system's package manager.
It does, however, prevent you from presenting what you find in a court of law in South Carolina unless you're also a licensed PI, or are collecting through a licensed PI agency.
I'm not really sure what concern this legislation addresses, honestly. If there's a question as to the reliability and relevance of an expert witness and/or their testimony, you can initiate a Daubert motion to have the evidence thrown out before the trial even starts. Problem solved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
"As people are approaching a port of inspection, they can show the card to the reader, and by the time they get to the inspector, all the information will have been verified and they can be waved on through," said Ann Barrett, deputy assistant secretary of state for passport services, commenting on the final rule on passport cards published yesterday in the Federal Register.
Hahahahaha. You have got to be fucking kidding me. I have been the United States on two separate occasions via air in the last few years and in both cases neither myself nor any of my fellow passengers were ever "waved on through" inspection. Everybody got the royal ass raping treatment and this comment by Ann Barrett is just a bureaucratic pie-in-the-sky sales job for the new passports. Given that these are US passports, being issued to US citizens, I think the idea is that it's supposed to expedite the reentry process for US citizens.
Being a US citizen who's reentered the country via air (I'm assuming you're not a US citizen), I can tell you the treatment you get is significantly different to the treatment non-US citizens get. They made sure my passport photo looked like me and asked if I was smuggling livestock into the country. That's it.
Maybe the difference is contributed to by the fact the customs and border patrol are basically schizophrenic? I live not far from the US-Canada border, and on reentry to the US I've gotten everything from "Oh, look, you have a passport, I'm sure it's yours, no need to look at it, have a nice day," to having me and everyone else in the vehicle lined up, our documents inspected, interviewed ("What were you doing in Canada? It's not like there's anything anybody could want up there!"), and required to officially make a declaration of any articles acquired in Canada.
I don't know if it outputs to anything other than wav, though if it didn't you could transcode the wav later or even just have it output to a named pipe that, say, oggenc was reading from at the same time.
According the GNU GPL FAQ, it's not enough that the source should simply be available somewhere on the Internet. ASUS has to identify the place to get the source and have arrangements to keep the relevant source there. They may have arrangements with Xandros, but it doesn't count unless they tell their users where to get the source.
Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?
The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".
Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries available.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSitesMaybe you're thinking of Zonbu? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zonbu
Which provision in particular does the article refer to? I'm trying to find it but there are references to copyright infringement all over this bill.
That the application of security in airports wasn't already completely random?
Upgrade to 1GB of RAM (2GB on Intel) and you won't see it anymore. (usually.)
-:sigma.SB
My school has two G5 Powermacs. They're both equipped with 2 GB of RAM and 2 2 Ghz G5 processors.
I see the spinny-rainbow-wheel-of-death all the time when I use those machines.
They want it because the price is unbeatable. It's just that it has an annoying license that they have to work around, in order to be able to sufficiently hamstring their users.
See, that's never made much sense to me. Why don't they just pick up a gratis operating system with a more permissive license, like one of the BSD's, and stop worrying about tivoizing GPL'ed code?
Or are they actually just evil and want to lock down GPL'ed code because it fills their weekly evil quota or something?
That was akin to my first thought: If opensource code is really so superior to closed source code, and if the world would be better off if all apps had been built from those codebases, then shouldn't we *encourage* it to be "pirated", for everyone's net benefit??
One of the strengths of open source is that improvements are shared. If one company just makes some improvements to an open source project and then redistributes it in a way that violates the terms of the license designed to keep it open, that only completely undermines that strength. Open source code isn't necessarily superior. It's the development model of open source.
Either way, it's a pretty shitty thing for a company to do. Just follow the damn license. It isn't hard.
Is it just me, or should the parent be modded funny and not troll... ?
Well, if they an anonymous coward, they're probably a troll and therefore shouldn't be modded up.
According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any object beyond the speed of light.
Actually, if I recall it correctly, it was more of a limitation of SToR. You started having to divide by imaginary numbers once you started plugging in velocities above c. Even with a velocity of c, SToR stopped making sense because then you had to divide by 0.
If you finish the paragraph, you'll find your answer.
It's not that different from what id has been doing, but Carmack's been keeping the engine proprietary for a few years to make money from licensing and then it gets GPL'ed. I have zero problem with that.
Here's another neat part of the presidential elections, beyond the massive voter fraud:
around 21% of the US population's ballots were for Bush in the last election. 60% of the population were either ineligible or didn't actually cast a ballot even though they could.
40% voted, 21% in total voted for Bush.
Even if we assume that there was no fraud (ha!), a smidgen over 1/5 of the US population did something stupid, and now the entire US population is vilified forever for it.
bootx boot a kernel cache at specified address
/kernelcache.
Is it just me, or does this sound like it has the potential to allow booting custom kernels? BootX is the name of the bootloader in Mac OS X, after all. fsboot also has potential if you can overwrite