Okay... KAL flight whatever got shot down by either A. Soviet Pilot Error or B. Soveit Pilot Boredom.
I saw a TV dramatization of that: According to that, there had been several incidents of airliner-size "spy planes" over the region (AWACS?), and due to the (off-)course of the airliner, the Soviets thought it was such a plane, and decided to finish it off. Reagan then gave an angry premature speech which led to a cooling-off in relations.
And the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.. I'm not sure anyone knew about harmonics then.
No, it's not like they had been making musical instruments for 6000 years, not to mention that aerodynamics were sufficiently known to provide airplanes...:-P
AFAIK, that's a product from Sweden's alcohol monopoly Systembolaget; IIRC, it was launched when the movie "Absolute Beginners" opened in Japan. Lately, it has become best known for the ads in various magazines, made by renowned artists, all having a variant of the rather peculiar flask.
But it does taste good, especially the blackcurrant version...
Just like gasoline, except that when you burn it you just get water vapor.
Another significant difference is that gasoline is liquid at "normal" temperatures, thus easier to handle. IIRC, liquid gasoline doesn't burn, the vapours do: but it vapourises very, very easily.:-)
The real real tragedy of the Hindenburg was that airships as a technology was practically abandoned until the 1980s or so.
(However, had it not exploded, its propaganda value for Hitler would have been much higher, too, which might have swayed the "neutral" USA in the opposite direction...)
The delimited file has fields surrounded by the delimiter: The separated file only has the separator between the fields. Result: Two more characters, one at each end.
The moral of IBM's and MS's story is that maintaining a multi-platform commercial OS is a money loser.
Not to mention Micros~1's first foray into cross-platform OSes: Xenix was apparently available on a whole range of machines. (But that was back when they did write multi-platform code, such as their versions of various programming languages.)
Researchers eat because they get paid; at universties/colleges, they get paid because they get a research grant. They get a research grant because a research council has said "yes, this is worthwhile doing". At least, that's the way it happens here in the UK.
And the council can give the grant because the Government spends money. And the Government can spend money because people pay taxes. (Okay, there probably are contributions to academic institutions from business as well... for tax dodging purposes.)
The question is: Should software development occur in academia only? It might have helped LaTeX quench the horrid wannabe word processors... <g>
The military guy knows what it takes to turn people into killers.
What, sitting with a mouse and keyboard looking at a monitor should in any way be connected to the ability to hold a physical gun in your hand and pull the trigger?
So Perl defaults to using floating point all over and Python assumes an integer divided on an integer yields an integer. Both are valid approaches.
The equivalent in Perl: use integer; print 3/2; prints 1, which is correct: You don't have decimals after comma on integers. If you wan 1.5 in Python, you compute 3.0/2.0 .
I think you mean 'C'. If you know Unix shell programming, Tcl comes easy. Perl remains excessively incoherent.
For you newbies, I'd suggest that you consider the fact that you're probably not going to be able to get by without learning some Perl,
Care to elaborate? What can you do in Perl that you cannot do in Python? Apart from
Overuse the characters %&@$ etc. that you hardly need to touch in Python, and
Pretend the tacked-on hack of an OO system is useful, as opposed to a real OO language like Python.
It *assumes* that you're someone who's learned Perl on the street without any formal CS background, and lets you in on the secrets using what may be the "lingua franca" of the software world: Perl.
I can probably find someone who feels the same about Visual Basic. Doesn't make it any more true. Perl has a head start: But so did Cobol.
I wish Python had been around when I learned Perl - I wouldn't have chosen as wrongly.
Was Berkley, with a/usr5 directory tacked on, IIRC. Solaris turned into SysVR4, and according to some sources there isn't a crumb left of UCB in there. Caveat: I don't have access to a Solaris-box myself to check whether/usr/ucb is gone.
but they managed to whip you all into enough of a frenzy to get the government to do their dirty work.
And the Sun vs. Microsoft suit over Java licensing is related to the DOJ vs. Microsoft trial over monopolistic practices - how? In two hundred words or less, please.
There's no need for you to be paranoid on Micros~1's behalf - they're more than capable of being so themselves.
Anybody that is surprised by this hasn't read Sun Licensing agreement. From the beginning it has stated that ANYTHING you develop in JAVA they have FULL right to use and implement it in anyway that they see fit.
Of course, you have a reference to a license that actually states this? Because the one that was in JDK 1.2.2 did not. If the use of the term "Software" in the license confuses you, it's defined in the first paragraph.
Note that neither of these points apply to software. Software can be enjoyed by infinitely many people simultaneously. Software runs on MY computer in MY house. No one elses property is involved. And don't go off on that 'information is property' crap.
It's not the information, dickhead, it's the labour put into the software. Do you work for free? Who pays for your food?
What would make sense, possibly, is id says "we have this idea to make a good game. It will be great. We will make it when we recieve 10 million dollars."
And in the meantime, the programmers work at McDonald's? Or live off Social Security and soup kitchens?
Well, if you don't pay, you may not get anything. Gamers pay now, even though they could download it warezly. So they would certainly pay under such a system.
You should join the Olympics team: With logical leaps like that, the long jump world record is well within your reach. The two are not comparable.
If you cannot provide good arguments, and experimental evidence that proprietary distribution is the only software model by which developers can be adequately compensated
It's not, but it's one of many models. So you prefer some other model - but why do you feel the need to attack those that treat their work as more than a mere hobby? Does your model not stand up to competition? It starts to sound like a religion...
you are a bastard in my book if you make use of this evil system.
*sigh* There you go off on a religious tanget again.
It comes down to whether you consider manufacturing software a labour or a hobby. If you work, would you do so for free? It could be argued your labour is not a physical entity - why should you get money for it?
If some pay for that labour and others don't, it makes those that don't pay (the warez kiddies) leeches, in the sense that they receive a benefit they haven't contributed to the availability of.
YOUR lack of common sense is appalling. When I download software, I AM MAKING IT ON MY OWN. Or at least, hardware which I own is making it. So what if it is an exact copy of something someone else made, they still have their original. The kid is not a leech. A leech removes blood from the victim. A warez kiddie gains something, but nobody else loses. Why can't you intellectual property morons understand that?
The warez kiddie is obtaining a "free" service others pay for, and the person who created the software wants compensation for. It's a bit like not paying the fare on the subway: The train is going anyway - who loses? Answer: The people who need to make up for the reduced income to those providing the service, and the company that provides the service. If you don't want to provide monetary compensation for the service, you are free to walk instead.
Infinite supply means zero price.
Zero price means zero income, meaning zero salaries, meaning no software industry.
The correct way to run a software development business is to charge for the programming, plain and simple.
*sigh* Who pays? In the "per copy" model, the cost is divided on the total number of users (those who benefit). In your model, someone pays $10 million on the spot, then everyone gets the product for free. Which is more sane? If you have such faith in your model, please make such a business, but don't deny others to use more reasonable models.
Just like a carpenter or mechanic.
A normal carpenter makes a product, then sells it. The total cost of one of their products is low enough that a single individual can buy it. The software industry does not work that way!
It is extremely selfish to expect compensation just because somebody recieved a benefit which would not exist without your past work.
Does not hold water at all. The point you are totally missing is that there is no "income" until the sales.
Would a mechanic walk down the street, tuning up cars along the way, then leave a bill on the windshield and expect to be paid?
A contender for the "most misfit analogy" award, if there ever was one.
You pay before or at the time of service. The time of service is at the development time, not at distribution time.
*sigh* again. The "time of service" here is the point where the software is sold. There is no "service" to the customer until then - the rest are only expenses in the form of salaries from the company to the employees.
you work and get paid.
And the money you get paid comes from what source? Please, try to think rationally. The employer needs business income in order to pay the wages. Or do you think money magically appears out of nowhere?
Here's an idea: Go into a grocery store, and start picking food without paying. When caught shoplifting, you can try the defense that the manufacturers already have been paid, and see where it gets you.
If you are too unimaginative to find a way to make money without restricting freedom, then you don't deserve money.
Your arrogance towards those not satisfied with making money through "you want fries with that?" is apalling. This "intellectual property should be free" crap is usually spouted by people unable to produce much of the kind themselves, or who are living off some other source.
The idea is that a person's labour should be compensated by those who benefit from it, aka. the customers. For instance, if Mars makes chocolate products, you are expected to pay for a bar of the stuff if you want to eat it. Otherwise, you are free to make cacao and mix it yourself - a time-consuming and expensive process, especially if done on a small scale.
Since intellectual property is intangible, some people seem unable to grasp the concept that it may have monetary value: Thus, e.g. parents are more willing to ignore it when their kid downloads some warez, whereas they would be very sad if said kid shoplifted. Because they attribute some value to physical products. But the kid is still a leech.
If someone charges for their product, and you are not willing to pay, then go and make your bloody own! Don't expect them to live on a romantic ideal where the State provides and the citizen gives - unless you do live in a communist country.
(Oh, and if it's not clear yet: Yes, I work in the part of the software industry that charges for its products.)
But the fraud is done by the person doing the "impersonation", not the service provider (bank, whatever). For instance, NNTP is normally non-authenticated; the server will accept any content in the headers. Some are a bit more paranoid than others, and force trace headers like NNTP-Posting-Host, NNTP-Posting-Date and the like, but there is a limit to the information the server can pick up.
If X.gc had been deployed, the issue would have been different, though...:-)
They call themselves communist. The distinction becomes apparent when you notice that the former East Germany and Lauren Kabila's "new" Congo call themselves "democratic". Are/were they?
Slashdot Mirror
I saw a TV dramatization of that: According to that, there had been several incidents of airliner-size "spy planes" over the region (AWACS?), and due to the (off-)course of the airliner, the Soviets thought it was such a plane, and decided to finish it off. Reagan then gave an angry premature speech which led to a cooling-off in relations.
And the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.. I'm not sure anyone knew about harmonics then.
No, it's not like they had been making musical instruments for 6000 years, not to mention that aerodynamics were sufficiently known to provide airplanes...:-P
AFAIK, that's a product from Sweden's alcohol monopoly Systembolaget; IIRC, it was launched when the movie "Absolute Beginners" opened in Japan. Lately, it has become best known for the ads in various magazines, made by renowned artists, all having a variant of the rather peculiar flask.
But it does taste good, especially the blackcurrant version...
Another significant difference is that gasoline is liquid at "normal" temperatures, thus easier to handle. IIRC, liquid gasoline doesn't burn, the vapours do: but it vapourises very, very easily. :-)
The real real tragedy of the Hindenburg was that airships as a technology was practically abandoned until the 1980s or so.
(However, had it not exploded, its propaganda value for Hitler would have been much higher, too, which might have swayed the "neutral" USA in the opposite direction...)
The DVD CCA isn't Government, and hence not hampered by details like the First Amendment.
The delimited file has fields surrounded by the delimiter: The separated file only has the separator between the fields. Result: Two more characters, one at each end.
Not to mention Micros~1's first foray into cross-platform OSes: Xenix was apparently available on a whole range of machines. (But that was back when they did write multi-platform code, such as their versions of various programming languages.)
And the council can give the grant because the Government spends money. And the Government can spend money because people pay taxes. (Okay, there probably are contributions to academic institutions from business as well... for tax dodging purposes.)
The question is: Should software development occur in academia only? It might have helped LaTeX quench the horrid wannabe word processors... <g>
What, sitting with a mouse and keyboard looking at a monitor should in any way be connected to the ability to hold a physical gun in your hand and pull the trigger?
A Perl guru who apparently have made positive comments about Python, and is therefore an UNCLEAN HEATHEN to the Perlaholics.
(Oh, and Perl is apparently a proprietary language from O'Reilly and Associates. :-P)
Nor is "x = x + 5" (how can x be five more than itself?). Let programming languages be programming languages.
To counteract the "Perl is the Solution" stock answer to any question from the pro-Perl religious zealots.
So Perl defaults to using floating point all over and Python assumes an integer divided on an integer yields an integer. Both are valid approaches.
The equivalent in Perl: use integer; print 3/2; prints 1, which is correct: You don't have decimals after comma on integers. If you wan 1.5 in Python, you compute 3.0/2.0 .
Yes, but that's just because any language derived from C is a terrible beginner language.
(if you already know Unix, Perl comes easy)
I think you mean 'C'. If you know Unix shell programming, Tcl comes easy. Perl remains excessively incoherent.
For you newbies, I'd suggest that you consider the fact that you're probably not going to be able to get by without learning some Perl,
Care to elaborate? What can you do in Perl that you cannot do in Python? Apart from
It *assumes* that you're someone who's learned Perl on the street without any formal CS background, and lets you in on the secrets using what may be the "lingua franca" of the software world: Perl.
I can probably find someone who feels the same about Visual Basic. Doesn't make it any more true. Perl has a head start: But so did Cobol.
I wish Python had been around when I learned Perl - I wouldn't have chosen as wrongly.
Was Berkley, with a /usr5 directory tacked on, IIRC. Solaris turned into SysVR4, and according to some sources there isn't a crumb left of UCB in there. Caveat: I don't have access to a Solaris-box myself to check whether /usr/ucb is gone.
You mean the language? See www.kaffe.org.
JAVA is licensed under the SCSL which is a proprietary license.
Sun's particular implementation is, yes.
And the Sun vs. Microsoft suit over Java licensing is related to the DOJ vs. Microsoft trial over monopolistic practices - how? In two hundred words or less, please.
There's no need for you to be paranoid on Micros~1's behalf - they're more than capable of being so themselves.
Of course, you have a reference to a license that actually states this? Because the one that was in JDK 1.2.2 did not. If the use of the term "Software" in the license confuses you, it's defined in the first paragraph.
Note that neither of these points apply to software. Software can be enjoyed by infinitely many people simultaneously. Software runs on MY computer in MY house. No one elses property is involved. And don't go off on that 'information is property' crap.
It's not the information, dickhead, it's the labour put into the software. Do you work for free? Who pays for your food?
What would make sense, possibly, is id says "we have this idea to make a good game. It will be great. We will make it when we recieve 10 million dollars."
And in the meantime, the programmers work at McDonald's? Or live off Social Security and soup kitchens?
Well, if you don't pay, you may not get anything. Gamers pay now, even though they could download it warezly. So they would certainly pay under such a system.
You should join the Olympics team: With logical leaps like that, the long jump world record is well within your reach. The two are not comparable.
If you cannot provide good arguments, and experimental evidence that proprietary distribution is the only software model by which developers can be adequately compensated
It's not, but it's one of many models. So you prefer some other model - but why do you feel the need to attack those that treat their work as more than a mere hobby? Does your model not stand up to competition? It starts to sound like a religion...
you are a bastard in my book if you make use of this evil system.
*sigh* There you go off on a religious tanget again.
It comes down to whether you consider manufacturing software a labour or a hobby. If you work, would you do so for free? It could be argued your labour is not a physical entity - why should you get money for it?
If some pay for that labour and others don't, it makes those that don't pay (the warez kiddies) leeches, in the sense that they receive a benefit they haven't contributed to the availability of.
The warez kiddie is obtaining a "free" service others pay for, and the person who created the software wants compensation for. It's a bit like not paying the fare on the subway: The train is going anyway - who loses? Answer: The people who need to make up for the reduced income to those providing the service, and the company that provides the service. If you don't want to provide monetary compensation for the service, you are free to walk instead.
Infinite supply means zero price.
Zero price means zero income, meaning zero salaries, meaning no software industry.
The correct way to run a software development business is to charge for the programming, plain and simple.
*sigh* Who pays? In the "per copy" model, the cost is divided on the total number of users (those who benefit). In your model, someone pays $10 million on the spot, then everyone gets the product for free. Which is more sane? If you have such faith in your model, please make such a business, but don't deny others to use more reasonable models.
Just like a carpenter or mechanic.
A normal carpenter makes a product, then sells it. The total cost of one of their products is low enough that a single individual can buy it. The software industry does not work that way!
It is extremely selfish to expect compensation just because somebody recieved a benefit which would not exist without your past work.
Does not hold water at all. The point you are totally missing is that there is no "income" until the sales.
Would a mechanic walk down the street, tuning up cars along the way, then leave a bill on the windshield and expect to be paid?
A contender for the "most misfit analogy" award, if there ever was one.
You pay before or at the time of service. The time of service is at the development time, not at distribution time.
*sigh* again. The "time of service" here is the point where the software is sold. There is no "service" to the customer until then - the rest are only expenses in the form of salaries from the company to the employees.
you work and get paid.
And the money you get paid comes from what source? Please, try to think rationally. The employer needs business income in order to pay the wages. Or do you think money magically appears out of nowhere?
Here's an idea: Go into a grocery store, and start picking food without paying. When caught shoplifting, you can try the defense that the manufacturers already have been paid, and see where it gets you.
Your arrogance towards those not satisfied with making money through "you want fries with that?" is apalling. This "intellectual property should be free" crap is usually spouted by people unable to produce much of the kind themselves, or who are living off some other source.
The idea is that a person's labour should be compensated by those who benefit from it, aka. the customers. For instance, if Mars makes chocolate products, you are expected to pay for a bar of the stuff if you want to eat it. Otherwise, you are free to make cacao and mix it yourself - a time-consuming and expensive process, especially if done on a small scale.
Since intellectual property is intangible, some people seem unable to grasp the concept that it may have monetary value: Thus, e.g. parents are more willing to ignore it when their kid downloads some warez, whereas they would be very sad if said kid shoplifted. Because they attribute some value to physical products. But the kid is still a leech.
If someone charges for their product, and you are not willing to pay, then go and make your bloody own! Don't expect them to live on a romantic ideal where the State provides and the citizen gives - unless you do live in a communist country.
(Oh, and if it's not clear yet: Yes, I work in the part of the software industry that charges for its products.)
... but also the "Somebody Else's Problem" effect, where everybody expect someone else to look, and nobody actually do.
But the fraud is done by the person doing the "impersonation", not the service provider (bank, whatever). For instance, NNTP is normally non-authenticated; the server will accept any content in the headers. Some are a bit more paranoid than others, and force trace headers like NNTP-Posting-Host, NNTP-Posting-Date and the like, but there is a limit to the information the server can pick up.
If X.gc had been deployed, the issue would have been different, though... :-)
*cough*Opera*cough*
They call themselves communist. The distinction becomes apparent when you notice that the former East Germany and Lauren Kabila's "new" Congo call themselves "democratic". Are/were they?