Slashdot Mirror

JavaScript is like being molested by your uncle. There's something off about him, but everyone regards him very highly, so you trust him, and then on a family camping trip out at Montauk Point he takes advantage of you. Years later, you accept and acknowledge what happened, but you still refuse to believe that he's scarred you, because that would put him in control, not you, and the last thing you want is a molester in control of your life -- but your denial doesn't make it the truth. You want to believe that deep down inside, JavaScript is a good person, and you see that JavaScript has very redeeming qualities, but you sit down to try and program JavaScript and all you can think of is that rhino's hard, throbbing cock

well, don't know anything about the jury, but the judge I reckon has really earned respect from communities like this because to better understand the situation, he got quite familiar with Java itself: http://radar.oreilly.com/2012/...

Typically, a Windows process running in the 2003 operating system environment can access up to 2GB of address space. This memory is split between actual physical memory and virtual memory. Basically, the more processes that are running on the system, the more memory will be committed to reach the full 2GB address space.

When memory consumption approaches the 2GB limit, the paging process increases and performance begins to degrade.

Linux:
2GB Filesize limit

Q: Is there any way around the 2GB file-size limit in Linux? Are there any stable patches to fix it?
A: Short answer: In a practical sense, no. The 2GB limit is deeply embedded in the versions of Linux for 32-bit CPUs:

Even if most hardware and software these days do not have these concerns, why break things for some systems?

Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET hosts = good security http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Steven Burn of Malwarebytes does
Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS) http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
Brocke Wilders of WILDERS' SECURITY does http://www.wilderssecurity.com...
Steve Gibson https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-045....
OReilly for security http://oreilly.com/pub/a/windo...
OReilly for speed http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/...

APK

P.S.=> Would you like more above & beyond them + our fellow /.'ers by the 100's using hosts (w/ millions online too) -> https://news.slashdot.org/comm... ? apk

It was all more fun back then because everything was NEW. It was AWESOME. Today ... meh.

But to your point about what the world would look like without Stalman ...

[rant]
1. No GPL. So Linus would have released his software under his original license, which was free for home users, paid for commercial users.
2. No GPL hassles. Anyone who wanted truly free software would build upon the *BSDs.
3. Given a choice between (1) and (2), businesses would all have opted for (2), because they can actually build upon it to make products users will pay for, like Apple (OSX) and Sony (Playstation 3/4) do.
4. Anyone else could also build upon the *BSDs, and either release the source or sell the combined software, or whatever combo they wished to do.

The printer driver problem that Stalman ran into was not really all that big a deal. Someone gives you state of the art equipment to play around with (a cutting-edge laser printer) and they would naturally expect that if there were problems, you would tell them, they would fix them, and improve their product. No just give you and everyone else the source code to that other companies can use it without any sweat equity.

Stalman's snit shows just how juvenile his thinking really is. He took personal offense because they exercised their freedom to not give the source. He doesn't want freedom - he wants control under his terms. F*ck you, Stalman.

The same people who decry closed software don't object to closed software for games, or for making closed software when they can make a buck out of it (apps apps apps). Stalman thinks everyone should live like he did, living in his university office, because making profit from working on/selling proprietary software is somehow evil ...

Until around 1998, my office at MIT was also my residence. I was even registered to vote from there.

and

I was just kind of curious. I can be "strange/non-conformist". I don't do deodorant. Don't do telephones (e.g. i rarely carry my cellphone and only use my landline for recruiters to spam my phone). I tried natural toothpaste because I don't like the effects of fluoride.
I don't feel so bad. Richard Stallman doesn't look like he bathes, shaves, plus he lived out of the MIT lab. Some people are stranger than me.
Bot Berlin
July 15th, 2008 2:28pm

Yes, and Charles Manson kills people -- that doesn't mean we want to compare ourselves to him.
SaveTheHubble
July 15th, 2008 2:29pm

The guy is an asshole. Remember when he wrote this:

As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." Nobody deserves to have to die - not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing.

s/Jobs/Richard Stalman/g

The GPL actually helps companies like Microsoft maintain their preeminent position because you can't make any real money selling GPL software, so development lags, there's no promotional budget, manufacturers don't care if your software runs on their devices or not. So guess who gets market and mindshare, even for open source software? It's why the free screen readers on Linux are crap compared to this free windows one. It's why decent text-to-speech and speech-to-text on Android actually works - Google is making their profit by getting their apps in front of everyone. If they had tried to sell android, they would have been up against the entrenched players - sun, microsoft, nokia, rim

And that explains why most sites are crap. You get someone who is experienced in making things look good to "design" the site when you need someone who knows about information architecture to design the site. Then you bring in the person with Photoshop to make it look pretty.

I've read the previous edition to Information Architecture For the Web and Beyond (this is the 4th) and it's a great book. http://shop.oreilly.com/produc... I really wish more designers would read it because making a site is more than just putting a menu up top and some common options like Contact Us down in the footer with the content in the middle.

How about O'Reilly's 'Windows 10: The missing manual'?

E.G. #1 - Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS) CLEARLY disagree w/ you:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

---

E.G.#2 - OReilly:

For security -> http://oreilly.com/pub/a/windo... & For speed -> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/...

---

E.G.#3 - Steve Gibson:

Steve Gibson endorses hosts as good https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-045....

---

E.G.#4 - Aryeh Goretsky of ESET/NOD32:

It works Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

---

E.G.#5 - Brocke Wilders of WILDERS' SECURITY does too:

By creating an inferior clone of MY PROGRAM though -> http://www.wilderssecurity.com...

---

E.G.#6 - Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes does also:

MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts + RECOMMENDS my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

APK

P.S.=> Myself as well makes 7, so, SO much for your bs jealous little off topic troll... apk

E.G. #1 - The words of a security expert, Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS) CLEARLY disagree w/ you:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

---

E.G.#2 - OReilly:

For security -> http://oreilly.com/pub/a/windo... & For speed -> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/...

---

E.G.#3 - Steve Gibson:

Steve Gibson endorses hosts as good https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-045....

---

E.G.#4 - Aryeh Goretsky of ESET/NOD32:

It works Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

---

E.G.#5 - Brocke Wilders of WILDERS' SECURITY does too:

By creating an inferior clone of MY PROGRAM though -> http://www.wilderssecurity.com...

---

E.G.#6 - Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes does also:

MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts + RECOMMENDS my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

APK

P.S.=> So much for your bs... apk

Google gplv3 "user product" brought me the article "GPLv3, User Products Clause" by Allison Randal, which links to the GPLv3 rationale document (PDF). However, the explanation to which Randal's article refers is in rationale for draft 3 (PDF), not rationale for draft 4 (PDF), to which the link to the rationale currently redirects. For convenience, I quote the relevant excerpt from the rationale for draft 3 here:

In our discussions with companies and governments that use specialized
or enterprise-level computer facilities, we found that sometimes these or-
ganizations actually want their systems not to be under their own control.
Rather than agreeing to this as a concession, or bowing to pressure, they
ask for this as a preference. It is not clear that we need to interfere, and the
main problem lies elsewhere.

While imposing technical barriers to modification is wrong regardless of
circumstances, the areas where restricted devices are of the greatest practical
concern today fall within the User Product definition. Most, if not all,
technically-restricted devices running GPL-covered programs are consumer
electronics devices, and we expect that to remain true in the near future.
Moreover, the disparity in clout between the manufacturers and these users
makes it difficult for the users to reject technical restrictions through their
weak and unorganized market power. Even if limited to User Products, as
defined in Draft 3, the provision still does the job that needs to be done.
Therefore we have decided to limit the technical restrictions provisions to
User Products in this draft.

And it's not a restriction on a particular field of use; it's a requirement for distribution in a particular form, namely preinstallation in a device. It's not much different from the requirement in GPLv2 to provide "scripts used to control compilation and installation" (my emphasis).

See subject - & does more by far vs. browser addons for less resource consumption + illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'":

E.G. #1 - Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS):

http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed & security is a gain!

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware." (another reputable source right there too: Spybot)

---

E.G.#2 - OReilly:

For security -> http://oreilly.com/pub/a/windo... & For speed -> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/...

---

E.G.#3 - Steve Gibson:

Steve Gibson endorses hosts as good https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-045....

---

E.G.#4 - Aryeh Goretsky of ESET/NOD32:

It works Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

---

E.G.#5 - Brocke Wilders of WILDERS' SECURITY does too:

By creating an inferior clone of MY PROGRAM though -> http://www.wilderssecurity.com...

---

E.G.#6 - Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes does also:

MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts + RECOMMENDS my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

APK

http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less...

---

E.G.#2 - OReilly:

For security -> http://oreilly.com/pub/a/windo... & For speed -> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/...

---

E.G.#3 - Steve Gibson:

Steve Gibson endorses hosts as good https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-045....

---

E.G.#4 - Aryeh Goretsky of ESET/NOD32:

It works Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

---

E.G.#5 - Brocke Wilders of WILDERS' SECURITY does too:

By creating an inferior clone of MY PROGRAM though -> http://www.wilderssecurity.com...

---

E.G.#6 - Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes does also:

MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts + RECOMMENDS my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

APK

P.S.=> Accept NO substitutes... apk

This was a deliberate move by the FSF, because computers that need passwords aren't really free, are they?

You joke, but RMS hates passwords on computers: http://www.oreilly.com/openboo... He might as well say "A train that is stuck to the tracks isn't really free to move. Remove the tracks!"

">trusting methods of computer identification on 1998 technology as a viable security layer - by Anonymous Coward - A LOSER WITH NO BALLS WHO WON'T IDENTIFY HIMSELF OR STAND BEHIND HIS BULLSHIT EITHER on Sunday December 13, 2015 @09:25AM (#51109513)

Big mistake: Respected security pros back me on hosts efficacy in security (malwarebytes, eset/nod32, symantec, & even O'Reilly):

E.G.#1 - Oliver Day (Symantec) too-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

E.G.#2 - Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

E.G. #3 - MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts + RECOMMENDS my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

E.G.#4 - OReilly - For security -> http://oreilly.com/pub/a/windo... & For speed -> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/...

APK

P.S.=> You FAIL miserably outnumbered, outthought, outsmarted & just plain OUTED - who backs you? NOBODY... lol!

... apk

She's dead, man. Let her go.

The Fall Of Perl, The Web's Most Promising Language http://www.fastcompany.com/302...
5 Programming Languages Marked for Death http://insights.dice.com/2014/...
Perl is Dead. Long live Perl. http://archive.oreilly.com/pub...

Meta-troll: Mod me a troll. Do it! Do it! Waste your shiny mod point to make my dream come true.

Yeah, must second that: Duh.
I think if you're looking for a good explanation of what EA does Neal and Mark get it seriously right for Software Architects (and let's face it, software is more than half of the problem space):
https://player.oreilly.com/vid...

Their fundamental insight-set is that you have to trade-off money, complexity and extensibility. So if the intro materials to the subject make it clear that you're not an architect designing a static building, why do we need an article to help us understand that?

What neither the article, nor its rebuttal seem to reference is that one of the most valuable things an EA does is to keep sales people from scoring goals on your director. Beginner and dilettante sales people sell cars. Extraordinarily good sales people sell multi-million dollar IT solutions to big corporations. These people read every magazine and website your CxOs, VPs and directors are reading and they have a very convincing answer for every known worry point and some truly dazzling success stories. It's an EA that sits in on all these INCREDIBLY BORING meetings, takes careful notes, reads all the white papers and independently engineers a best fit solution with true costs for evaluation. These costs are often many times what the sales people quoted and many difficult arguments and power-points will be needed to defeat them. It's these evaluations that keep the people doing the hard work of coding from being given insane integration requests with unworkable technologies. In addition to driving the business toward workable solutions, good EAs pay for themselves in the mistakes prevented.

You're definitely right about the Wikipedia article glossing over some of the specifics, but I'm not sure I agree that the dichotomy is false. (I'll have to dust off the cobwebs a bit—I first learned this stuff when I was studying CS at Carnegie Mellon way back in the early '90s. :)

My understanding is that one important reason to separate the literal function from the closure (function + scope) has to do with separating syntax from semantics. You the function itself just gives you the symbol manipulation; you can't interpret the meaning of it until you have its context, in the form of a scope (or stack frame, etc.).

Symbolic manipulation versus semantic meaning is really important when you're proving things like computability. I remember back in a graduate mathematical logic course, we used only formal logic to prove some complex fundamental theorem of calculus—but the meaning of that theorem was completely irrelevant, we did the proof entirely through symbol manipulation. So we were able to derive the proof syntactically, without any of the calculus semantics. Not sure if that helps illustrate the difference. Like I said, it's been a while since I studied this stuff. :)

From a more practical perspective, this matters a lot when doing compiler optimization. When you use an anonymous function—where "anonymous" literally just means "doesn't have a name"—a typical compiler will do all sorts of optimizations. I see this a lot when doing .NET programming: if you have an anonymous method that has the same contents as a named method, the C# compiler will just call it, or if the anonymous method is only called once, it may just embed it directly into the calling method, etc. (You can actually see this yourself by writing some code, compiling it, and using ildasm to look at the byte code.) Capture is really important here: this won't work with a closure, because it has the scope. However, a lot of times something that looks like a closure doesn't actually require the scoped variables, or they can be passed in as references, so it can be compiled into an anonymous function.

I've been doing a lot of Scala programming lately, and it's done a lot differently behind the scenes in Scala—and the delineation between anonymous and named is a lot more blurry from a compiler perspective. If you define a Scala function:

object MyScalaObj { runAFunction(f: Int => Int) { println(f(3)) } }

this looks a lot like it takes as its f parameter the kind of method that's compiled into a compiler-named anonymous method. But Scala is bytecode-compatible with Java, so this is actually done on the object level—you can pass it an instance of an object (in this case, an instance of scala.runtime.AbstractFunction1):

static Function1 FunctionObj = new AbstractFunction1() {
      @Override
      public Object apply(Object i) {
            return (Integer)i + 6;
      }
};

and call it like this from Java:

MyScalaObj.runAFunction(FunctionObj);

So when the Scala compiler compiles an anonymous method, it generates an object like FunctionObj. The reason this is relevant is because what looks anonymous to Scala is actually not just a function with a stack context, but in fact an actual object on the heap. This is about as far from a literal function as you can get.

And now you know why I thanked Bob Harper in the preface to my most recent book. :)

I think you missed an important concept here: std::make_unique can never, ever ever leak. It returns a std::unique_ptr<T> which will free the allocation and/or transfer ownership to another unique_ptr instance (or to a shared_ptr). At no point can it lose track of the memory it is managing for you.

Forget about "focussing on things have an equivalent delete/free". Understand that unique_ptr does this for you. So does shared_ptr. Their whole point is to manage allocations for their whole lifetime. No more need for manual make-work or tedious checking; this ensures it's correct under every circumstance. If it's not correct it won't compile, end of story. Ownership transfer is explicit. Doing it by hand the old way is error prone because it's possible to forget; we see time and time again that programmers aren't perfect and do forget, or introduce leaks when refactoring, or misunderstand who is the owner. These smart pointers eliminate that entire class of bugs at a stroke. And they are not "new" by any means; they have been around for over 15 years in boost, in C++03 TR1 and in C++11.

I would highly recommend taking a read of Meyers' new Effective Modern C++ book, which covers all this in detail with really good examples.

// old
{
    Foo *f = new Foo(); // bare pointer with no clear ownership
    f->bar(); // leak on throw
    delete f; // leak if omitted
}

// new
{
    std::unique_ptr<Foo> f(std::make_unique<Foo>()); // managed unique pointer with defined ownership
    f->bar(); // cleanup on throw
} // cleanup at scope exit

These are equivalent. Except: I didn't need to delete f in the second case; it happened automatically when f went out of scope. And if the bar() method threw an exception, it would automatically free the memory when the stack was unwound. There are other corner cases it also protects against. And this is about as trivial an example you can get; you can do much, much more with them.

What kind of features were worthless?

Semicolon insertion.
Idiotic scoping rules.
Bad handling of NaN and null.
Hidden prototype items in arrays/objects.
"with" statement.
"==" not working like "===".
"void"

Many more listed here: Bad parts
And here: Awful parts

What kind of features were worthless?

Semicolon insertion.
Idiotic scoping rules.
Bad handling of NaN and null.
Hidden prototype items in arrays/objects.
"with" statement.
"==" not working like "===".
"void"

Many more listed here: Bad parts
And here: Awful parts

You just need to read [JavaScript: The Definitive Guide].

Read it cover to cover a couple times

Why not just read the good parts? Bonus: knowing the good parts of JavaScript may help you tame the fractal that is PHP as well.

You just need to read one book.

Read it cover to cover a couple times, and if that doesn't get you a job, at least you can kill someone by dropping the book out of a third story city window.

JavaScript itself is not kludgy at all

That's going a bit far. Javascript definitely has some kludge in the corners and along the basebords. The wallpaper also needs to go.

Not many lanaguage need a book called "the good parts" (great book, by the way). Or, a little more tongue-in-cheek....

I'm seeing posts from people saying things like, "Agile isn't working for my team, I just spent my whole daily standup reading this thread" or, "I get a lot of work done during my retrospectives". Of course agile sucks for these people! Agile will get limited—but still useful—results when the team has this attitude.

But if they have a different mindset where they actually try during the daily standup or retrospective, it works so much better.

Look, every really good developer I've worked with has had good opinions and ideas about how the project should be run. When they spend the entire standup or retrospective looking at on their phones, the team doesn't get the benefit of those opinions and ideas. But when they use the meeting to actually share those ideas, and maybe even engage in a good discussion (or even argue for them!) with the rest of the team, the whole project benefits. But that only works if they care about doing a good job with the standup or the retrospective the way they care about doing a good job with their code.

I'm plugging my book, Learning Agile, now. I hope you don't mod me down too much for that. But I think we did a pretty good job arguing this point in the first few pages the first chapter. You can read the first chapter for free [PDF].

And may I recommend everyone have a look at the infamous debate between Tanenbaum and Torvalds over the micro vs macro kernel issue. It's pretty entertaining if you've never seen it before

JavaScript was originally just going to control some minor browser behavior; moving windows around, etc. So it didn't need to be efficient or well thought out. Then it got extended and overused so much that it slowed down computers so noticeably that it caught the attention of everyone.

Actually, web technologies were horrible, with every major browser adding its own incompatible extensions and the W3C barricaded in an ivory tower, and Microsoft extended their version of Javascript to support the insane uses of Internet Explorer as the Windows Update control panel and stuff like that. Then Microsoft won the browser wars, and web technology stagnated, until some people figured out that "the XML HTTP thing" could be used to create web applications that communicated in objects instead of reloading all the time, and Jesse Garrett gave it the name Ajax. Then there was a business use for Javascript to be fast.

Then Douglas Crockford discovered that Javascript has good parts, the WhatWG started doing HTML5, and now many web sites don't show anything at all without Javascript, but at least you can compile a sane language into Javascript.

FYI BSD license was also the result of Richard Stallman (RMS). He wasn't completely happy about it, he was trying to get the folks at Berkley to use a license closer to the GPL. But, RMS very much influenced the BSD folks to release under a free license at all. Without RMS, you might not have access to BSD, so, stop hating.

http://www.oreilly.com/openboo...

Hired in 1986, Bostic had taken on the personal project of porting BSD over to the Digital Equipment Corporation's PDP-11 computer. It was during this period, Bostic says, that he came into close interaction with Stallman during Stallman's occasional forays out to the west coast. "I remember vividly arguing copyright with Stallman while he sat at borrowed workstations at CSRG," says Bostic. "We'd go to dinner afterward and continue arguing about copyright over dinner."
.
.
.
"I think it's highly unlikely that we ever would have gone as strongly as we did without the GNU influence," says Bostic, looking back. "It was clearly something where they were pushing hard and we liked the idea."

nope. but if you go java who cares about oracle? as long as they don't fuck up the jvm too much everything is fine. that's sun's legacy. and in if they finally do, there will be a fork.

How about we wait for the final outcome of Oracle v. Google before being quite so confident about that?

Adopting an Oracle solution because you don't like Microsoft is like buddying up with Beelzebub because you don't like that annoying neighbor who keeps trying to get you to join Amway.

Getting over-the-air TV isn't as easy as it used/ought to be.

When all the stations went digital they also reduced their transmission power, so I went from being able to receive in my basement to getting no signal for the local PBS affiliate.

Had to run a cable from the basement to the living room and build a special-purpose digital TV antenna in order to be able to receive a signal again: http://cachefly.oreilly.com/ma...

(I'm pretty sure PBS had the plans originally, but I can't find the link)

Said this already a while back on a simular problem:
It's called marketing.

In short:
If your project is (re)presented properly, you'll have people falling over each other to claim gouvernance over it.
I'd put it into a foundation - after refurbishing it's outward representation!

Example: Typo3's architecture looks like it's designed by monkees on crack, it's config language TypoScript is so bizar - in concept and in implementaion - I can't even describe it and there are a countless other strange things about this software. Yet it has a professional website, ressonable documentation and a solid brand, brandbook included(!). I doubt the Typo3 Foundation has problems finding heralds for it's project. There even are Oreilly's on it.

Hope I could help. And good luck finding a heir for your project.

Quick, patch whitehouse.gov ;-)

http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/...

http://buytaert.net/whitehouse...

More seriously, I assume they also run some kind of WAF that would catch the attempt even if drupal wasn't yet patched since I do and I am much much smaller.

Get The Book of PF

O'Reilly has published some fairly dystopian books on technology, books written by some of his associates. For example, The Future Does Not Compute by Steve Talbott is excellent, though now a little old (published in 1995).

When will we see the next edition of documentation for the X Window System?

Warning: this is blatantly self-promotional. It's also a pretty good answer to the question, I think, so hopefully I won't get violently modded down.

It sounds like you're exactly who Jenny Greene and I wrote Head First C# for. I played around with a lot of different ways to teach both C# language and core object oriented programming and computer science concepts, and I found that building games was easily the most satisfying way to do it.

The only way to really learn a language is writing a lot of code, and one of the biggest challenges I had putting the book together was coming up with many different projects. The answer was games: a card games, a turn-based game, arcade games -- it turns out that building a game is a great way to keep readers motivated, especially when they're learning new concepts. I've had a lot of really positive feedback from first-time programmers who found it really satisfying to get through the book, and especially building the final project (a retro Space Invaders game).

You can download a free PDF of the first three chapters of Head First C# from the O'Reilly page and see if you like it.

Warning: this is blatantly self-promotional. It's also a pretty good answer to the question, I think, so hopefully I won't get violently modded down.

It sounds like you're exactly who Jenny Greene and I wrote Head First C# for. I played around with a lot of different ways to teach both C# language and core object oriented programming and computer science concepts, and I found that building games was easily the most satisfying way to do it.

The only way to really learn a language is writing a lot of code, and one of the biggest challenges I had putting the book together was coming up with many different projects. The answer was games: a card games, a turn-based game, arcade games -- it turns out that building a game is a great way to keep readers motivated, especially when they're learning new concepts. I've had a lot of really positive feedback from first-time programmers who found it really satisfying to get through the book, and especially building the final project (a retro Space Invaders game).

You can download a free PDF of the first three chapters of Head First C# from the O'Reilly page and see if you like it.

We have clearly a different opinion of what rights are. If I have a right to make a copy and I have a perfectly working computer to exercise my right and then because I bought a DVD or Blu-Ray that feature is removed, the manufacture of those DVD/Blu-Ray clearly violates my rights. It doesn't matter if I agreed for that, I right stays a right. That is the same principle of why slavery is illegal, even if you sign a contract that makes you a slave.

That is also the reason why all contracts have a clause that if some passages of the contract is in contradiction of the current law, that passage becomes void. So, even if I agreed in a EULA like contract to disable my rights, my rights still are valid. For example, the first sale right is still valid even if you agreed to a EULA that disallows resale.[1,2]

[1] http://toc.oreilly.com/2013/03...
[2] http://www.dw.de/oracle-loses-...

Functional programming for mere mortals coming soon. Erlang tamed for the new century: http://elixir-lang.org/ Listen here http://programming.oreilly.com... and here elixir computer language

Newflash - the "we're doing everyone a favour" excuse was a joke 10 years ago.

And still today clueless individuals think that "hackathon contests" (documented as worse-than-useless 11 years ago) are the best way to smoke out security holes.

Andy writes, at The technical aspects of privacy, "The first of three public workshops kicked off a conversation with the federal government on data privacy in the US... hearing news all the time about new technical assaults on individual autonomy, I found the circumscribed scope of the conference disappointing. "

That's just confirming that I'm on the right path, when I buy an ebook, the first thing I do is to strip-out the DRM and then save this copy in my backed-up storage. If I paid for it, I want to make sure I own it, period.

Wrong. By purchasing the DRM'd copy in the first place, you're financially supporting their flawed business model and making it appear that you're okay with the crippled product you purchased.

I will only buy non-DRM eBooks. If that means that certain authors can only be purchased in dead-tree versions, well, that's how it's gotta be.

The fact that there is a need for a book like this: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596517748.do

Needed, perhaps, but that is a good book, recommended for anyone who wants to delve a little deeper into Javascript.

The fact that there is a need for a book like this: http://shop.oreilly.com/produc...

Maybe? :) Still haven't found a "C - Just the Good Parts" book, but still looking.

The lack of a well documented driver API is a serious problem itself. Part of the problem is the fact Kernel developers practice what are generally regarded as poor habits by failing to document their code and properly document interfaces. Microsoft has better driver API documentation than Linux. I have looked into the documentation myself and it is extremely hard to find any. Most companies will just throw up their arms and not continue if they cannot find clear documentation. They are clearly not going to root around some kernel hackers source code to try to backengineer the API from the source code.

The documentation is in the comments of the header files. That's a fairly common way to do it for C programmers, that way the documentation stays with the code.

If you're just trying to figure it out, this book is a good introduction.

Let's integrate the cruise control and ABS logic into the robot driver!

Some might call that an architecturally flawed design, but those people have been proven to be fucking morons in similar technical discussions.

What an interesting idea... It seems like I've heard it before:

"Down the road, connected-vehicle and cloud-based data will build on these predictive developments--as will those autonomous vehicles you hear so much about."

Let's integrate the cruise control and ABS logic into the robot driver!

Some might call that an architecturally flawed design, but those people have been proven to be fucking morons in similar technical discussions.

Get Make: Electronics - Learning Through Discovery published by O'Reilly. Books from O'Reilly are DRM-free.

Judging by the cover, that looks like a really good book.

Get Make: Electronics - Learning Through Discovery published by O'Reilly. Books from O'Reilly are DRM-free.

Nerds can learn to cook and cook well.

There's even an O'Reilly book on the topic:

Cooking for Geeks.

You jest, but that's not too far off.

[When] passwords first appeared at the MIT AI Lab I [decided] to follow my belief that there should be no passwords. Because I don't believe that it's really desirable to have security on a computer, I shouldn't be willing to help uphold the security regime.

See http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch07.html