amszmidt

7 ms·

61.
by amszmidt 1y ago
Haven’t we learnt anything? Just look at how some police work in the US.
62.
by amszmidt 1y ago
Alas, the military answers to the president. Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called int
63.
by amszmidt 2y ago
I don't know, but shouldn't UNESCO when marking something of significance do this kind of research, and reaching out to organizations that are trying (and have been trying) to do essentially what they want to protect? It is a grea
64.
by amszmidt 2y ago
The IA is closing in on 30 years, has UNESCO done anything to help the IA during that time?
65.
by amszmidt 2y ago
Solmization, I think is maybe what you are looking for? It is where you sing a song using the Solfege (Do/Re/Mi....)? Though I wouldn't say that it is the same as "sight reading" -- but maybe "sight singing&qu
66.
by amszmidt 2y ago
You will need to blame Boethius, musical notation is a quagmire of many systems that have been merged over centuries. If you venture into non-western systems, it becomes even more fascinating. Maybe we should make one more standard .. th
67.
by amszmidt 2y ago
The piano is a new instrument, when it was created its natural "place" was within the C major scale (all white keys); while A major requires 3 black keys. All instruments have a "sweet" spot for where they like to make s
68.
by amszmidt 2y ago
The easy answer is that the piano is not the "reference" instrument. If you look at a violin, the A major scale is generally the first scale you learn -- not C. The piano has C natural in the middle of a full 88 keyboard, which i
69.
by amszmidt 2y ago
Maybe more importantly, it is in that specific order because it is the key of C major! The A major scale is for example would be A, B, C♯, D, E, F♯, and G♯ ... In fixed Solfège, that would become La Si Do ... but in movable Solfège, Do wou
70.
by amszmidt 2y ago
> instead of real notes? C, D, ... are real notes? Some countries do Solfège, some don't.
71.
by amszmidt 2y ago
We will have to disagree, by 1993 we (University) used it all over the place for production with either Slackware or Debian. Which where rock solid. FreeBSD barely worked around the time, and even with the FreeBSD 2.0 release which nuked
72.
by amszmidt 2y ago
> This is revisionist history. […] FreeBSD came quite a bit later than GNU and Linux. The BSDs were also plagued by the whole AT&T mess. As someone who was around at the time… I cannot really relate to your comment.
73.
by amszmidt 2y ago
I think it is more about design, emulation mimics what something does. A simulator replicates what something does. It is a tiny distinction, but generally I'd say that a simulator tries to accurately replicate what happens on an elect
74.
by amszmidt 2y ago
The easy definition is that an interpreter takes somethings and runs/executes it. A compiler takes the same thing, but produces an intermediate form (byte code, machine code, another languages sometimes called "transpilar").
75.
by amszmidt 2y ago
While an interpreter can do optimizations, they do not produce "byte code" -- by that time they are compilers! As for the comparison with the JVM .. compare to a compiler that produces x86 code, it cannot be run without an x86 mac
76.
by amszmidt 2y ago
An interpreter runs the code as it is being read in. A compiler processes the code and provides an intermediate result which is then "interpreted" by the machine. So to take the "writes it in byte code" -- that is a comp
77.
by amszmidt 2y ago
Try FlightGear ( https://www.flightgear.org/ ) it is a Free Software simulator, and super fun .. specially with real maps and weather. And there are bunch of tutorials.
78.
by amszmidt 2y ago
> [..] only deems the GNU licenses to be truly free (libre) software. Simply has never been the case.
79.
by amszmidt 2y ago
The “NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3” is an Open Source license that is not a Free Software license (hence not Libre).
80.
by amszmidt 2y ago
The effort involved, and legal risk is exactly the same as for any Copyleft license. If you don't know what your stack is doing, that is the problem -- not the license.
81.
by amszmidt 2y ago
Eh, all the GNU family of licenses were drafted by lawyers. Just using any Copyleft software has no legal consequences (copyleft licenses kick in when distributing, not using them).
82.
by amszmidt 2y ago
But then it isn’t “internal”…
83.
by amszmidt 2y ago
Well, yes .. it is a label, and a label can be put almost anywhere. This is normal, expected C behavior and any standard conformant compiler would behave the same, not just GCC.
84.
by amszmidt 2y ago
"Refuses" --- that is not what I read in the Dan's comment, on the contrary. Deleting specific comments is just fine. The GDPR doesn't mean you can delete everything you have written on the Internet wholesale, it means
85.
by amszmidt 2y ago
> *Yes, GDPR requires the ability to delete data: Under specific circumstances. It could be easily argued that deleting comments would fall under the first example of the link you posted -- unless you're a minor. The GDPR doesn&#x2
86.
by amszmidt 2y ago
Ukraine is nothing like Israel. It is a known fact that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. While Ukraine is tip toeing a very fine line defending itself and Europe against Russian aggression (e.g., barely allowed to neutral
87.
by amszmidt 2y ago
Trademarks don’t (usually) cover file names and function names. See for example the classic GNU Emacs tetris.el debacle…
88.
by amszmidt 2y ago
Wireshark has a similar feature where you can open an ELF, or PNG and look at the sections. The LUA interface isn't to shabby either to write such "dissectors".
89.
by amszmidt 2y ago
Emacs had this 40 years ago. ;-)
90.
by amszmidt 2y ago
Fun fact. Emacs was doing this even long before Tramp, in the 1980s it was already common to work with remote files. So more like 40 years …

More ›