Eh no. It would be that the resulting process of the executable, the source code of which contained this line, would be non-existent. As it would crash, as soon as it was encountered.
No, your premise is wrong. It all starts with: you are under no obligation to put free content out there. Should you, in spite of this, choose to do so yet, you shouldn't be surprised if people leech it. If you disagree with this, then I'm sure (since you're posting on Slashdot), that you have the technological acumen to invent and implement and popularize a protocol that will provide content to people, all the while forcing them to see it as you want them to see it - including ads.
I've been out of the buzzword loop for a while, but these 'multimethods' - isn't that anything and everything that programmers should avoid like the plague ? I mean, checking the type of some vage supertype inside a function body - even perl warns against that !
O, very true. And I said, or meant to say, exactly that. And it goes even beyond that - the IETF only has the first three bits (001) designated as a global address; the global IPv6 internet is 20::/3, as it were. And on top of that, they still have five 'eights' left currently to do the same thing with. Possibilities are certainly enlarged; if only from 32 to 45 bits (which is still eight thousand current internets). But to think that we'll go from 32 to 128 and use them as we do today, is not true.
What many people don't realize is that, initially, we won't go from 32 bits to 128 bits; we'll go from 32 bits (that we don't all use) to 32 bits (that we all can use) - at least if you consider ISP endpoints. For every soon-to-be-given-out address starts with '2001', goes on to have 32 bits of designated space, then have 16 bits for ISP routing, and end with another 64 bits of 'random' (usually made up of your device's MAC address). So the bits are there, but I don't think the IETF is intending to use them, at first.
I'm sure that the UK isn't very representative of Europe then, because I've never had any problems getting/anything/ done using some number that some private company dreamed up. Save for getting a loan, but then again - they weren't based on some historic data that had nothing to do with it, they were just the total number of my already being in debt. Just the current debt, that's all, and only for further loans.
You cannot open a bank account ? How is that ? I'm sorry; I just don't understand. Why would a bank not give you a little number to put stuff into ? Sorry, this goes beyond a little culture shock to me.
It's the general feeling, even among professionals, that security breaches are arbitrary. That, for every laptop with unencrypted harddrives and/or data left in the train, there is a remote root hole on the securest system that defies explanation because it was never thought of before.
I understand that every country has their public/private sources of information on a person that can be accessed by certain people for certain purposes: countries would not function without it. This whole 'credit report' thing has me a bit slumped though; it's certainly not something that is as prevalent in its use here in the Netherlands. Sure, banks have set up a system that contains all your loans and telephone companies might not give you a phone if you have a bad history of debt and Experian says so, but all this only goes for really bad debt (like, you've had a few collection agencies 'round already) and its use is sporadic. In the US, it seems, its use is endemic. Question: is it possible/not/ to have a credit report to your name ? Can you go through life without one ?
Finland has seventeen people per square kilometre. I think I can leave it to you to calculate that to people per square mile. I think you can already tell that the number won't be much higher.
So you're willing to take the performance hit and you replace a direct function calling interface with some form of RPC and you work around the GPL source redistribution requirement in that way. I can see that someone would call that 'acting in bad faith'. The problem is, however, that I might have done something quite unique in the client app still (or any level of uniqueness) and therefore I'm not really acting in bad faith at all. The difference between the two can only be one of degree, so this is very, very hard to prove. Add to that that, nowadays, splitting up your app into multiple processes is actually quite fashionable, and you have a difficult case on hand. Thirdly, I don't like the innuendo of it: it comes too close to the 'thought police' - '*think* of my library and redistribute your thoughts or else'.
My feeling is that it depends on the availability of other (non-GPL) libraries that provide exactly the same calling interface. That's why it makes no sense to have the (GNU) C library be GPL: I could link against twenty bloody other C libraries if I wanted to. Very specific libraries that are only available under the GPL OTOH, there you have a point. The problem lies with the libraries in between - ssl-related stuff comes to mind; can you (morally) claim a calling interface that is a de facto standard ?
The problem with the Loch Ness monster (as with Bigfoot and Yeti) is that, if they really resemble their known species colleagues (lizards and apes), they need at least a thirty or forty year cycle to reproduce. And they will have a lifecycle of around hundred years. And since they've been 'seen' for more than a hundred years, they must have had children, and since there were children, they must have had mates, and since they must have had mates, they must have had fathers, mothers, children, and by-and-large, represent at least one family of at least six members, but much more likely (to keep the gene pool a bit fresh), several tens of members, at the very least. Now you can hide one bigfoot in the hills, and one Nessy in a lake, but thirty ?
Another Apple user here (Macbook this time); I agree with your post and newsletter etc: I'm overall happy with my Mac, but I think Apple is doing certain things that invoke the wrath of us geeks because they are/too/ dumbed down (and cannot be smartened up). Something we used to acuse Microsoft of as well, ironically enough. Another 'feature' is the binary lock-in (which resonates with the subject at hand here); I always hold my breath when doing a software update. Not only do they require reboots too often (but that's just a sidenote), and I have no fear of Apple's apps working afterwards, but as for the installations of truecrypt, firefox, VLC, Virtualbox etc; it's usually shit-your-pants time. The third part of my beef with his Steve-ness is the fact that certain features of Mac OS are just stupid or immature. But on the whole I'm a happy Mac-user, who still likes to reserve the right to complain about those things that he considers downsides.
Not to be a killjoy, but they might have been both. The bleeding incident may have come from an encounter that wasn't the reporter's fault. Now the fact they reported it, both this and this map, that points to a scientifically inclined culture.
I thought the expression 'brazillian' didn't become popular (and therefore used on a map) before it meant 'an enormous amount of money', as in 'I've just earned a Brazillion dollars' or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Just put a condom on man ! Oh wait.
Man, those christians - they eat everything !
while (1) { ;
switch (nextheader) {
case 0: fprintf(stderr, "-------- Hop By Hop\n"); goto OPTION;
case 43: fprintf(stderr, "-------- Routing\n"); goto OPTION;
case 44: fprintf(stderr, "-------- Fragment\n"); goto OPTION;
case 50: fprintf(stderr, "-------- ESP\n"); goto OPTION;
case 51: fprintf(stderr, "-------- Auth. header\n"); goto OPTION;
case 60: fprintf(stderr, "-------- Destination options\n"); goto OPTION;
OPTION:
{
unsigned nhd = payload[0];
unsigned len = payload[1];
unsigned siz = (len + 1) * 8;
fprintf(stderr, "nexthd.: %u\n", nhd);
fprintf(stderr, "noctets: %u\n", len);
if (siz <= size) {
payload += siz;
size -= siz;
nextheader = nhd;
} else {
fprintf(stderr, "WARNING: Exceeding given data.\n");
goto ENDOPTIONS;
}
}
continue;
case 6:
netdbg_ipv6_tcp(packet, payload, size);
return;
case 17:
netdbg_ipv6_udp(packet, payload, size);
return;
case 58:
if (size >= 8) {
netdbg_icmpv6(packet, payload, size);
} else {
fprintf(stderr, "WARNING: No further processing.\n");
}
return;
default:
fprintf(stderr, "Unknown type %d: No further processing.\n", nextheader);
return;
}
}
ENDOPTIONS:
Eh no. It would be that the resulting process of the executable, the source code of which contained this line, would be non-existent. As it would crash, as soon as it was encountered.
...XML patents should not be valid. There is no invention in XML. Software patents are stupid....
Ha ! Wait until you see my implementation of EMACS using nothing but XSLT !
No, your premise is wrong. It all starts with: you are under no obligation to put free content out there. Should you, in spite of this, choose to do so yet, you shouldn't be surprised if people leech it. If you disagree with this, then I'm sure (since you're posting on Slashdot), that you have the technological acumen to invent and implement and popularize a protocol that will provide content to people, all the while forcing them to see it as you want them to see it - including ads.
I've been out of the buzzword loop for a while, but these 'multimethods' - isn't that anything and everything that programmers should avoid like the plague ? I mean, checking the type of some vage supertype inside a function body - even perl warns against that !
O, very true. And I said, or meant to say, exactly that. And it goes even beyond that - the IETF only has the first three bits (001) designated as a global address; the global IPv6 internet is 20::/3, as it were. And on top of that, they still have five 'eights' left currently to do the same thing with. Possibilities are certainly enlarged; if only from 32 to 45 bits (which is still eight thousand current internets). But to think that we'll go from 32 to 128 and use them as we do today, is not true.
What many people don't realize is that, initially, we won't go from 32 bits to 128 bits; we'll go from 32 bits (that we don't all use) to 32 bits (that we all can use) - at least if you consider ISP endpoints. For every soon-to-be-given-out address starts with '2001', goes on to have 32 bits of designated space, then have 16 bits for ISP routing, and end with another 64 bits of 'random' (usually made up of your device's MAC address). So the bits are there, but I don't think the IETF is intending to use them, at first.
I'm sure that the UK isn't very representative of Europe then, because I've never had any problems getting /anything/ done using some number that some private company dreamed up. Save for getting a loan, but then again - they weren't based on some historic data that had nothing to do with it, they were just the total number of my already being in debt. Just the current debt, that's all, and only for further loans.
You cannot open a bank account ? How is that ? I'm sorry; I just don't understand. Why would a bank not give you a little number to put stuff into ? Sorry, this goes beyond a little culture shock to me.
It's the general feeling, even among professionals, that security breaches are arbitrary. That, for every laptop with unencrypted harddrives and/or data left in the train, there is a remote root hole on the securest system that defies explanation because it was never thought of before.
I understand that every country has their public/private sources of information on a person that can be accessed by certain people for certain purposes: countries would not function without it. This whole 'credit report' thing has me a bit slumped though; it's certainly not something that is as prevalent in its use here in the Netherlands. Sure, banks have set up a system that contains all your loans and telephone companies might not give you a phone if you have a bad history of debt and Experian says so, but all this only goes for really bad debt (like, you've had a few collection agencies 'round already) and its use is sporadic. In the US, it seems, its use is endemic. Question: is it possible /not/ to have a credit report to your name ? Can you go through life without one ?
Finland has seventeen people per square kilometre. I think I can leave it to you to calculate that to people per square mile. I think you can already tell that the number won't be much higher.
So you're willing to take the performance hit and you replace a direct function calling interface with some form of RPC and you work around the GPL source redistribution requirement in that way. I can see that someone would call that 'acting in bad faith'. The problem is, however, that I might have done something quite unique in the client app still (or any level of uniqueness) and therefore I'm not really acting in bad faith at all. The difference between the two can only be one of degree, so this is very, very hard to prove. Add to that that, nowadays, splitting up your app into multiple processes is actually quite fashionable, and you have a difficult case on hand. Thirdly, I don't like the innuendo of it: it comes too close to the 'thought police' - '*think* of my library and redistribute your thoughts or else'.
Twitter. Is there /anything/ it can't do ?
My feeling is that it depends on the availability of other (non-GPL) libraries that provide exactly the same calling interface. That's why it makes no sense to have the (GNU) C library be GPL: I could link against twenty bloody other C libraries if I wanted to. Very specific libraries that are only available under the GPL OTOH, there you have a point. The problem lies with the libraries in between - ssl-related stuff comes to mind; can you (morally) claim a calling interface that is a de facto standard ?
The problem with the Loch Ness monster (as with Bigfoot and Yeti) is that, if they really resemble their known species colleagues (lizards and apes), they need at least a thirty or forty year cycle to reproduce. And they will have a lifecycle of around hundred years. And since they've been 'seen' for more than a hundred years, they must have had children, and since there were children, they must have had mates, and since they must have had mates, they must have had fathers, mothers, children, and by-and-large, represent at least one family of at least six members, but much more likely (to keep the gene pool a bit fresh), several tens of members, at the very least. Now you can hide one bigfoot in the hills, and one Nessy in a lake, but thirty ?
Systems that don't die don't need the first two bits.
No, you should have said: The most import thing to know is\0
That's even better than NO CARR\0
I'll stop now.
Time to let go of that ancient rule that ports under 1024 are root-only.
Another Apple user here (Macbook this time); I agree with your post and newsletter etc: I'm overall happy with my Mac, but I think Apple is doing certain things that invoke the wrath of us geeks because they are /too/ dumbed down (and cannot be smartened up). Something we used to acuse Microsoft of as well, ironically enough. Another 'feature' is the binary lock-in (which resonates with the subject at hand here); I always hold my breath when doing a software update. Not only do they require reboots too often (but that's just a sidenote), and I have no fear of Apple's apps working afterwards, but as for the installations of truecrypt, firefox, VLC, Virtualbox etc; it's usually shit-your-pants time. The third part of my beef with his Steve-ness is the fact that certain features of Mac OS are just stupid or immature. But on the whole I'm a happy Mac-user, who still likes to reserve the right to complain about those things that he considers downsides.
Not to be a killjoy, but they might have been both. The bleeding incident may have come from an encounter that wasn't the reporter's fault. Now the fact they reported it, both this and this map, that points to a scientifically inclined culture.
I thought the expression 'brazillian' didn't become popular (and therefore used on a map) before it meant 'an enormous amount of money', as in 'I've just earned a Brazillion dollars' or something.
Well, let's quickly send one out, then !