It seems the GP's tragically variable spelling skills have distracted you from his main thesis.
He's actually asking why the 'robot' (or android, or animatronic monster, or what-have-you) was made to look Caucasian, and not Japanese.
Well it beats WYSIWYG, which always sounds like a childrens cartoon character to me.
What, do people really pronounce that? Wizzy-wig? Eugh!
I (and those I've spoken to) have always just said 'what you see is what you get', or simply avoided the phrase altogether.
I detested programming in Lisp. The endless parentheses tracking and macro soup made it a miserable experience. It seems to be mainly popular with people who don't have to actually write the code.
That's what the macros are for: so you don't have to write the code, you can just leave it to the machine.
Re:Python is the Lisp of the 21st century
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
I go to great lengths to avoid circumstances where architecture decisions were made in my absence.
Why would I bother developing something if I wasn't going to distribute it, either myself or someone I work for?
Perhaps because you wanted to run it?
Also, it sounds like you may not be aware that the definition of 'distribution' as used in the GPL does not include using the modified program in-house, even if it's by more people than just the developer.
(See this question in the GPL FAQ).
Insofar as I do have a nice new chair now (my first), may I observe that those who DO have $700 Aeron chairs do so because they are creating wealth, not just absorbing material.
I'm glad somebody mentioned this - that was my first thought when I read TFS.
Companies can happily throw that money around because they get ROI, in money.
However important it is to invest in the education of children, the ROI in that case is not immediately available as money that can be used to pay for chairs.
"When you're that big, it's easy to step on people just by moving around."
Have you ever seen a horse or an elephant step on a human? Generally, I've found, they know they are big, so they are careful. Oracle and Microsoft could be careful. The fact that they aren't careful shows their abusiveness is deliberate.
May be I'm being too naive but why not use a very simple anonymisation scheme for those trackers?
Here's how:
Two independent sites host two files of random bits. When you xor these files, you get the tracker content. Neither site can be convicted of publishing the tracker because both can claim that they only publush random bits. Actually this can be more sofisticated than that: N+1 files on N+1 sites to publish N trackers, only one is really random and every one of N+1 site is claiming to be the random one. Innocent until proven guilty. Or the opposite: N+1 sites publishing one tracker (Xor of all N+1 files) only one is guilty, others are really innocent.
Because the courts can easily see that they're all colluding in the scheme - regardless of which individual bits they sent out?
If the difference between chrome 8.0 and chrome 7.0 were as big as that between firefox 3.0 and firefox 2.0, or between opera 10.0 and opera 9.0, then you'd have a point.
No, then Google would just be coding faster.
The differences are smaller and the releases tighter (than even Opera or Firefox regular minor feature -- as opposed to bugfix -- releases) because they are taking a lean approach, which involves not bundling up more changes at once, so that you don't have as many things that need to happen before a release happens, and so that if a feature gets bumped to the next release, its not that significant, because the next release is right around the corner.
Surely that development model is orthogonal to issue of which version number they pick, though?
Releasing every six weeks (or whatever it is) makes a difference, but calling them 5.0, 6.0, 7.0 doesn't make any technological difference compared to 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, does it?
If you had an open source (and flashable) alarm clock, and if you hate that the snooze is always a constant 9 minutes, it's likely that someone else thought the same thing and released a patch to let you set the snooze to whatever you want.
(I know this was just a minor analogy, but I've just been pondering the boundaries of when software freedom matters...)
I think part of the reason that nobody cares about whether their alarm clocks run free software (even Richard Stallman*) is that there are always plenty of other alarm clocks, and if you don't like yours you can get another one with the configurable snooze.
There is no possibility for vendor lock-in, no training required, no data conversion - it's trivially easy to just grab the new clock (or microwave, etc) and use it, so there's a free market with competition.
Contrast that with computer software - once you're using a particular proprietary program, there is no free market surrounding that particular program. There can be free market competition between that program and other similar ones, but the individual competing programs are not interchangeable so you cannot hop between the separate walled gardens.
A free program opens up a free market around that specific program, so even without abandoning the program, you can still take advantage of competition - just like what's happening with the android ecosystem right now.
</ramble>
* I went to see Stallman give a talk last night, he said something along those lines in response to an audience question.
The sentence starts with conditional "if" and it looks like a question but has no actual question mark so I'm not sure if that is a question that one should answer or a statement of opinion. But either way it is highly biased sentence.
If it's a question then it's a leading one and would be objected if asked in court of law.
If it's a statement of opinion then it's biased by definition.
That doesn't look like a question to me, just a (biased, sure) conditional statement.
Look, you did the same thing twice - the conditional statement, not the bias;)
I'm sorry to see that you aren't liking it so far - my personal opinion is that using C++ is very rewarding, at least over similar languages such as Java and C#.
Regarding
"std::string mystring()" took a while for me to comprehend. My first thought was that it was something like "char mystring()" until I realized it was an object initalization and declaration all in one.
your first thought was correct, if by 'something like "char mystring()"' you mean declaring a function - not defining a variable.
Where it can get confusing is when there are parameters:
"std::string mystring("hi");" is a variable initialization;
"std::string mystring(char c);" is a function declaration.
Good luck, and which ever language you work with, enjoy it!
Brad Cox... embraced the C-ness but added...
Bjarne Stroustrup... embraced and extended.
Sorry, what differences are you trying to point out here? You make it sound like they did exactly the same thing (which they did, as far as I'm concerned).
Thank you! If I hadn't done a quick bit of digging to refute your claims, I wouldn't have found out about std::complex.
Oh, and I disagree with your claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Hear, hear!
I never understood why everybody tried to pronounce three consonants in a row, yet IDE always got spelled out.
I always pronounced SCSI as ess see ess eye instead of scuzzy (and IDE as ide instead of eye dee eee).
I know, I know, I'm crazy, right?
It seems the GP's tragically variable spelling skills have distracted you from his main thesis.
He's actually asking why the 'robot' (or android, or animatronic monster, or what-have-you) was made to look Caucasian, and not Japanese.
I second that!
Well it beats WYSIWYG, which always sounds like a childrens cartoon character to me.
What, do people really pronounce that? Wizzy-wig? Eugh!
I (and those I've spoken to) have always just said 'what you see is what you get', or simply avoided the phrase altogether.
Unfortunately, here in Australia, we're not very good at doing 'northenmost' ;)
I detested programming in Lisp. The endless parentheses tracking and macro soup made it a miserable experience. It seems to be mainly popular with people who don't have to actually write the code.
That's what the macros are for: so you don't have to write the code, you can just leave it to the machine.
I go to great lengths to avoid circumstances where architecture decisions were made in my absence.
What, you mean "working for anybody else"?
Why would I bother developing something if I wasn't going to distribute it, either myself or someone I work for?
Perhaps because you wanted to run it?
Also, it sounds like you may not be aware that the definition of 'distribution' as used in the GPL does not include using the modified program in-house, even if it's by more people than just the developer.
(See this question in the GPL FAQ).
Insofar as I do have a nice new chair now (my first), may I observe that those who DO have $700 Aeron chairs do so because they are creating wealth, not just absorbing material.
I'm glad somebody mentioned this - that was my first thought when I read TFS.
.. or maybe I'm just being short-sighted?
Companies can happily throw that money around because they get ROI, in money.
However important it is to invest in the education of children, the ROI in that case is not immediately available as money that can be used to pay for chairs.
yes, and change your wifi mac address first in case the coffee shop logs them
in GNU/Linux, with atheros driver on the wifi, set it to b0000000b135 with
# ifconfig ath0 down
# ifconfig ath0 hw ether b0:00:00:00:b1:35
# ifconfig ath0 up
needs more de:ad:be:ef
De:ad:be:ef with b0:00:00:00:b1:35? Ew, one at a time please.
"When you're that big, it's easy to step on people just by moving around."
Have you ever seen a horse or an elephant step on a human? Generally, I've found, they know they are big, so they are careful. Oracle and Microsoft could be careful.
The fact that they aren't careful shows their abusiveness is deliberate.
Also that they are not elephants.
If I built a robot that stole cash out of your bank account
...
Yes it's a really bad analogy but still.
Wait, that was an analogy? I thought you were just talking about TFA.
May be I'm being too naive but why not use a very simple anonymisation scheme for those trackers? Here's how: Two independent sites host two files of random bits. When you xor these files, you get the tracker content. Neither site can be convicted of publishing the tracker because both can claim that they only publush random bits. Actually this can be more sofisticated than that: N+1 files on N+1 sites to publish N trackers, only one is really random and every one of N+1 site is claiming to be the random one. Innocent until proven guilty. Or the opposite: N+1 sites publishing one tracker (Xor of all N+1 files) only one is guilty, others are really innocent.
Because the courts can easily see that they're all colluding in the scheme - regardless of which individual bits they sent out?
You can force them to work, or you can force them to sit on their asses in prison.
Or you can force them to work while sitting on their asses in prison... don't they already do that in the US?
is orthogonal to issue of which version number they pick
Damn, to the issue. Sorry, more coffee required...
No, then Google would just be coding faster.
The differences are smaller and the releases tighter (than even Opera or Firefox regular minor feature -- as opposed to bugfix -- releases) because they are taking a lean approach, which involves not bundling up more changes at once, so that you don't have as many things that need to happen before a release happens, and so that if a feature gets bumped to the next release, its not that significant, because the next release is right around the corner.
Surely that development model is orthogonal to issue of which version number they pick, though?
Releasing every six weeks (or whatever it is) makes a difference, but calling them 5.0, 6.0, 7.0 doesn't make any technological difference compared to 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, does it?
I'm confused, are you saying the lower (version #)/(number of years out) a browser is, the better? Are you saying Chrome isn't a useful browser?
I believe he's saying that the version number is irrelevant to determining the quality of the browser.
It's so they can fire you for lying on your job application.
If they found out, couldn't they just fire you for using illicit drugs?
If you had an open source (and flashable) alarm clock, and if you hate that the snooze is always a constant 9 minutes, it's likely that someone else thought the same thing and released a patch to let you set the snooze to whatever you want.
(I know this was just a minor analogy, but I've just been pondering the boundaries of when software freedom matters...)
I think part of the reason that nobody cares about whether their alarm clocks run free software (even Richard Stallman*) is that there are always plenty of other alarm clocks, and if you don't like yours you can get another one with the configurable snooze.
There is no possibility for vendor lock-in, no training required, no data conversion - it's trivially easy to just grab the new clock (or microwave, etc) and use it, so there's a free market with competition.
Contrast that with computer software - once you're using a particular proprietary program, there is no free market surrounding that particular program. There can be free market competition between that program and other similar ones, but the individual competing programs are not interchangeable so you cannot hop between the separate walled gardens.
A free program opens up a free market around that specific program, so even without abandoning the program, you can still take advantage of competition - just like what's happening with the android ecosystem right now.
</ramble>
* I went to see Stallman give a talk last night, he said something along those lines in response to an audience question.
The sentence starts with conditional "if" and it looks like a question but has no actual question mark so I'm not sure if that is a question that one should answer or a statement of opinion. But either way it is highly biased sentence.
If it's a question then it's a leading one and would be objected if asked in court of law.
If it's a statement of opinion then it's biased by definition.
That doesn't look like a question to me, just a (biased, sure) conditional statement. ;)
Look, you did the same thing twice - the conditional statement, not the bias
While that would be nice, it still wouldn't help in the cases where it's slowed the entire system to a crawl :P
Regarding
"std::string mystring()" took a while for me to comprehend. My first thought was that it was something like "char mystring()" until I realized it was an object initalization and declaration all in one.
your first thought was correct, if by 'something like "char mystring()"' you mean declaring a function - not defining a variable.
Where it can get confusing is when there are parameters:
"std::string mystring("hi");" is a variable initialization;
"std::string mystring(char c);" is a function declaration.
Good luck, and which ever language you work with, enjoy it!
Brad Cox ... embraced the C-ness but added ... ... embraced and extended.
Bjarne Stroustrup
Sorry, what differences are you trying to point out here? You make it sound like they did exactly the same thing (which they did, as far as I'm concerned).
Thank you! If I hadn't done a quick bit of digging to refute your claims, I wouldn't have found out about std::complex.
Oh, and I disagree with your claims.