which is simply a shorter name for a loop. Again, I can overload the character m to be m($_)-> map($_) which makes it even more efficient right? I must be a dumbass because I dont use Perl for everything. It's so succinct!
I can click ONE BUTTON and have tons of code generated
Words like "tons" are meaningless in this respect. What I consider a lot and what you consider a lot are completely subjective (especially when I like code generation). Trying to say that "after X lines a standard should indicate that there is too much code generation" is a perfectly quantitative statement. That damned real life gets in the way again as you can't mathematically prove that X is anything but an imaginary number suited to your specific situation, for any given language on any given project pertaining to any specific paradigm (like an online shopping cart)! That should be a bullhorn indicating you are past objective optimization and into some kind of half-thought-out zealotry because you find that machines are sometimes less efficient than humans at solving problems. Java isn't broken because IDE's write setter/getters. That's the common practice for people who use the language. Code generation doesn't solve a problem there either, it simply conforms to practice. In any IDE that produces g/s, you can have the option to customize what it writes or turn it off.
The compiler wouldnt know any better itself, how to deal with each object unless you explicitly told it in each individual case. The generation creates the most common template and you can modify it on a case-by-case basis. The reason code generation exists is, for the most part, that it is efficient.
P.S. Please understand, I dont think you are stupid or incompetent, just to be clear. I dont understand why automatic code generation could POSSIBLY be an indication that a language is bad.
Repetion of code constructs is not a problem in any way. There is nothing to be solved. Syntactical repetition is pragmatic for maintenance/modification which is a requirement of the real world. OOP doesnt eliminate repetition, as an example. OOP is used to condense common functionality into parameratized blocks...did it eliminate repetition? No. Instead of repeating a code block you're repeating the object reference to dereference methods/properties. You're also passing the same parameters repeatedly, in most cases. Still repetition, but abstracted to be shorter! This hasnt changed anything for the computer, only for the programmer. Now you have less fine control of the code block, in exchange for easier readability. How far do you want to leverage that kind of exchange? Repetition is a fundamental aspect of computing and you aren't going to eliminate the base logic (0/1) when you are relying on leveraging the atomicity.
If repetition is your ideological enemy, why dont you explain how to abstract away having to type out those pesky loop constructs, I hate typing those out over and over...and I have to do it many more times than defining a common function or class. My IDE starts and completes the syntactical constructs (and in some cases the entire loop!) for me. That's bad why?
fun() { is not a solution to a problem. This is syntax, which is an abstraction cast. The nature of a command like "grep" is very similar. You continue to mischaracterize programming, so your point of view is absurd on its face.
There's also a push for these IDE's to automatically do a lot of menial coding tasks (I believe that if you can click a button and have an IDE generate code, that the language is bad or the problem is designed wrong, but that's another discussion).
That's a peculiar view when your tool writes the same 0 and 1 over and over again (even abstractions show duplication at multiple levels). It almost sounds like "I should never have to write the same series of commands more than once!", which is childish at best. I dont see what's to discuss, when the premise is incorrectly stating the nature of programming. Programs don't solve problems. Programs are barely tools to address (common) needs.
Reverse it and it would be correct because a developer is not going to take a small amount of gpl code and use that, they are gonna add their small amount of code to a largely GPL base.
Remove such vagueities are "small" and "large", since they have no real meaning. I'd like to point out that it's a completely unnatural premise that a commercial developer is going to start building on a GPL project for profit. Now look at the post again. It's one thing to reverse an analogy to be in direct contradiction to reality, it's another to completely misunderstand the valid arguments against the GPL. Accepting them blindly because you believe it helps you (without actually understanding why or why not) is just as bad as clicking through a EULA you didnt read. That's an accurate analogy.
The social mechanism, as to why this yahoo's nonesense gets modded up, is an excellent example of how the/. mod system is broken.
The logical conclusion is that the current rules and regulations have nothing to do with saving lives, but everything to do with protecting the status quo for corporate financial interests.
Obviously those who release their code for free (as in beer) don't expect to make money from the act of others downloading the code.
Unsurprisingly, this is how some companies/people are currently making money off of OS code. Redhat makes money off the distribution of code. Distribution for free allows greater adoption which allows for the need to quicker adoption in time-critical cases (premium digital channels for delivery is yet another way to make money off download-distribution while still being OS). This one of the many ways the community strength, reinforces itself... only obvious after reaching a threshold of success of course. I will attempt to guess that
There's lots of reasons, they amalgamate into a belief in a higher or LOWER cause, even if it's as terrestrial as the company's bottom line.
Abstract reasoning for choosing a license.
Open Source just exposes the logic. Nothing more.
A statement describing the total net-effect of a practical reality.
There is no license entitled "Open Source", but there is a movement/belief, so my statements don't "feel" like I contradicted myself.
I am sorry, GPL3 is not the original topic of your discourse. My bad.
I stated "If their goal were to make money from the code...".
That's only the first wrong.
Open Source just exposes the logic. Nothing more. There's inherent value in large collections of OS code outside of the logic. I can't understand why you would believe that releasing code OS prevents you from making money off of it.
Hence I said: Open Source code is not a vow of poverty, This is not at odds with capitalism. (this was a bit obtuse, but same logic)
You state: Releasing your code under an Open Source compatible license is a license choice, nothing more.
That's your second wrong.
Your license choice is always based on an informed decision. You astutely say that there's an implicit "Reason" to chose a license. There's lots of reasons, they amalgamate into a belief in a higher or LOWER cause, even if it's as terrestrial as the company's bottom line. That's why you dont roll dice to decide your license. Since you simply call my reasoning (why one might choose an OS license) fallacious, with no real logic or evidence to the contrary, I'll just ignore your "rah rah I'm right, you're wrong!" stance out of respect. We each misspeak every day.
I did not miss the point. I think you are stating falsehoods as arguments why GPL3 is sane. Defending a legal agreement is always easier than attacking it when there's only a philosophical incentive to attack it. That's just business and the core of Torvald's problem with it.
If their goal were to make money from the code, odds are they wouldn't have open sourced it
Your view is typical of the Open Source fanboys. Open Source code is not a vow of poverty, it's a belief in a philosophy of community strength. This is not at odds with capitalism. Once you understand that, you might have an idea of why Torvalds' criticisms have validity.
It comes across just fine, as long as you are able to recognize the legitamacy of both sides in the conflict. Even when defending such peaceful debates as what editor to use, you tend to make extremely fanatical comments within the discourse.
McAfee is implying that their research indicates that OSS has done a lot of damage. In summary, OSS allows irresponsible and careless (or payed) angry adolescents to develop quicker and easier than going to school. Malcontents have access to tools that were only available to software development houses that sold commercial products, previously. This is why malware is so much more advanced.
I don't know if that conclusion is sound, but there is no evidence to the contrary and malware certainly has become staggeringly advanced. McAfee would probably know better than to issue such a statement without actually being sure. So you can claim that you know more than McAfee and it's all BS./. is an excellent platform for that.
Personally, I think it's probably true. That's not to say it's a bad thing that their job is rougher. The concept of a separate vendor to combat bugs in an OS is just a rough spot in the evolution of OS development.
Please keep the knee-jerk critical analysis to more simple problems, like where to shop for gas. Hawking's question is meaningless flamebait taken WAY too seriously. Then come the comments from people who know it all, of course.
Never ever say "That's something we don't want/need to know." Investigate and study everything.
I dont want nor need to know how it feels to slide down a razor buck naked, nor how it tastes to drink a bucket of monkey snot. If you're drunk I can undestand a failure in logic. If you're just stupid, I can't help that.
It should be interesting to note that there are no PRESERVED articles advocating preparing for a new ice-age because junk science never got published, unlike now. It's more likely that any evidence contradicting the "greenhouse effect" would be discarded in the 90's when the web was being populated. It's rather difficult (in most cases impossible) to pull the 70's news footage from the rotting reels which was the way that I was made aware of the scare. It's really quite scary that there's a website devoted to proving the opposite of what I WATCHED happen (new Ice Age scare).
Here's a bibliography of climate change literature from the 1970s. The closest thing to "worrying about a new ice age" in the whole list is a paper predicting that one could arrive within thousands, maybe even hundreds of years.
As you weren't alive for it, I was. It was predicted by a number of scientists in both Europe and the United States. It's interesting that you can find anything on the internet claiming to prove the opposite of fact.
Also I would just as soon not be killed off.
I would bet you drive a car. Hard to take such hypocritical alarmists seriously when you can't even put your own safety in perspective.
The rate and amount of change seem to indicate that we're already beyond the normal range of variation
That statement is completely nonsensical. The rate of iPods or number of Dodo's may seem to indicate that we're already beyond the normal range of variation.
I am wondering why so many educated people actually think global warming is a PROBLEM when in the 70's (which you probably weren't alive for) everyone was worrying about the beginning of a new ice age, given the cooler temperatures, on average. Everyone wants their lifetime to be a turning point. Everyone wants fame as a herald. It just hasn't come CLOSE to being proven that there is a crisis.
Luckily, the Earth environment is VERY robust and would kill off the offending causes of massive temperature shifts. Even if there were a crisis, I wouldn't be worrying about it. I have to wonder why you would and why it's so OBVIOUS now.
PSI is both difficult to setup and use; as far as IMs go. The immaturity of the client (PSI) is quite evident from the complex and unforgiving error messages like "Reason:". Jabber messages to particular services can be (permanently?) blocked via certain gateway servers being arbitrarily blocked, for various reasons at random intervals! Technically superior yes. Practically more useful, no. When a client cant reach your universal messenger when you're online, you'd have to go back and install another client? That defeats the purpose.
I do not agree that PSI is a better choice. I can't professionally recommend a program that is not the best for a client TODAY, I wouldn't recommend it for the random passer-by until it was honestly the best solution.
All evidence points to World of Diablo. The suggestions that World of SC should even be made, are mere pipedreams and wishful thinking. When your reason is so completely ursurpt, you should probably stop with the games and go outside.
A new, more reliable weapon, they say, would help the nation reduce its stockpile.
In the Bush administration, it's opposite day, all day. The single redeeming quality of the movie Contact, was a very poingant truth about the US Government. "Why buy 1 when you can buy 2 at twice the price?" 6500 bombs are for 6500 targets. The targets are more numerous today, not less. This will not reduce the stockpile. However, this is good for the US. Just don't believe the lies that are made to protect you!
If you want something blah blah blah and secure...you haven't defined secure well enough. Once you decide what you want, security becomes a near all-or-nothing endeavor. GAIM is what you want for secure and a heterogenous collection of messengers ppl are bound to come from. Why PSI and NET SEND are even being suggested, is pure moderation trolling.
It's fairly apparent he's just saying things to get noticed at this point. The more sane approach would be to focus on improving humanity. Genetically enhancing intelligence and space adaptations (or harsh environment) are infinitely more plausible and more constructive than throwing around the idea that world governments are competent enough to make stable colonies, without a fundamental shift in human evolution.
Simplified, work on making smart people first. Worry about expansion AFTER that.
It wouldn't necessarily be ethical to attempt to find the owner if there is a lost and found procedure (in a US bank where scraps of personal information are a potential LIABILITY, this is part of the audit). Either way, picking up the thumb drive and accessing the information are a series of unethical acts. Expecting people to act in a proper manner, is not unethical. Trying to safeguard people from their own inpropriety, is a pointless slippery slope.
Slashdot Mirror
which is simply a shorter name for a loop. Again, I can overload the character m to be m($_)-> map($_) which makes it even more efficient right? I must be a dumbass because I dont use Perl for everything. It's so succinct!
Words like "tons" are meaningless in this respect. What I consider a lot and what you consider a lot are completely subjective (especially when I like code generation). Trying to say that "after X lines a standard should indicate that there is too much code generation" is a perfectly quantitative statement. That damned real life gets in the way again as you can't mathematically prove that X is anything but an imaginary number suited to your specific situation, for any given language on any given project pertaining to any specific paradigm (like an online shopping cart)! That should be a bullhorn indicating you are past objective optimization and into some kind of half-thought-out zealotry because you find that machines are sometimes less efficient than humans at solving problems. Java isn't broken because IDE's write setter/getters. That's the common practice for people who use the language. Code generation doesn't solve a problem there either, it simply conforms to practice. In any IDE that produces g/s, you can have the option to customize what it writes or turn it off.
The compiler wouldnt know any better itself, how to deal with each object unless you explicitly told it in each individual case. The generation creates the most common template and you can modify it on a case-by-case basis. The reason code generation exists is, for the most part, that it is efficient.
P.S.
Please understand, I dont think you are stupid or incompetent, just to be clear.
I dont understand why automatic code generation could POSSIBLY be an indication that a language is bad.
Repetion of code constructs is not a problem in any way. There is nothing to be solved. Syntactical repetition is pragmatic for maintenance/modification which is a requirement of the real world. OOP doesnt eliminate repetition, as an example. OOP is used to condense common functionality into parameratized blocks...did it eliminate repetition? No. Instead of repeating a code block you're repeating the object reference to dereference methods/properties. You're also passing the same parameters repeatedly, in most cases. Still repetition, but abstracted to be shorter! This hasnt changed anything for the computer, only for the programmer. Now you have less fine control of the code block, in exchange for easier readability. How far do you want to leverage that kind of exchange? Repetition is a fundamental aspect of computing and you aren't going to eliminate the base logic (0/1) when you are relying on leveraging the atomicity.
If repetition is your ideological enemy, why dont you explain how to abstract away having to type out those pesky loop constructs, I hate typing those out over and over...and I have to do it many more times than defining a common function or class. My IDE starts and completes the syntactical constructs (and in some cases the entire loop!) for me. That's bad why?
fun() { is not a solution to a problem. This is syntax, which is an abstraction cast. The nature of a command like "grep" is very similar. You continue to mischaracterize programming, so your point of view is absurd on its face.
Reverse it and it would be correct because a developer is not going to take a small amount of gpl code and use that, they are gonna add their small amount of code to a largely GPL base.
Remove such vagueities are "small" and "large", since they have no real meaning. I'd like to point out that it's a completely unnatural premise that a commercial developer is going to start building on a GPL project for profit. Now look at the post again. It's one thing to reverse an analogy to be in direct contradiction to reality, it's another to completely misunderstand the valid arguments against the GPL. Accepting them blindly because you believe it helps you (without actually understanding why or why not) is just as bad as clicking through a EULA you didnt read. That's an accurate analogy.
The social mechanism, as to why this yahoo's nonesense gets modded up, is an excellent example of how the
and seconds later you'll toss it aside, like ... a barren drumstick.
The logical conclusion is that the current rules and regulations have nothing to do with saving lives, but everything to do with protecting the status quo for corporate financial interests.
Obviously those who release their code for free (as in beer) don't expect to make money from the act of others downloading the code.
... only obvious after reaching a threshold of success of course.
Unsurprisingly, this is how some companies/people are currently making money off of OS code. Redhat makes money off the distribution of code. Distribution for free allows greater adoption which allows for the need to quicker adoption in time-critical cases (premium digital channels for delivery is yet another way to make money off download-distribution while still being OS). This one of the many ways the community strength, reinforces itself
I will attempt to guess that
There's lots of reasons, they amalgamate into a belief in a higher or LOWER cause, even if it's as terrestrial as the company's bottom line.
Abstract reasoning for choosing a license.
Open Source just exposes the logic. Nothing more.
A statement describing the total net-effect of a practical reality.
There is no license entitled "Open Source", but there is a movement/belief, so my statements don't "feel" like I contradicted myself.
I am sorry, GPL3 is not the original topic of your discourse. My bad.
I stated "If their goal were to make money from the code...".
That's only the first wrong.
Open Source just exposes the logic. Nothing more. There's inherent value in large collections of OS code outside of the logic. I can't understand why you would believe that releasing code OS prevents you from making money off of it.
Hence I said:
Open Source code is not a vow of poverty,
This is not at odds with capitalism. (this was a bit obtuse, but same logic)
You state:
Releasing your code under an Open Source compatible license is a license choice, nothing more.
That's your second wrong.
Your license choice is always based on an informed decision. You astutely say that there's an implicit "Reason" to chose a license. There's lots of reasons, they amalgamate into a belief in a higher or LOWER cause, even if it's as terrestrial as the company's bottom line. That's why you dont roll dice to decide your license. Since you simply call my reasoning (why one might choose an OS license) fallacious, with no real logic or evidence to the contrary, I'll just ignore your "rah rah I'm right, you're wrong!" stance out of respect. We each misspeak every day.
I did not miss the point. I think you are stating falsehoods as arguments why GPL3 is sane.
Defending a legal agreement is always easier than attacking it when there's only a philosophical incentive to attack it. That's just business and the core of Torvald's problem with it.
If their goal were to make money from the code, odds are they wouldn't have open sourced it
Your view is typical of the Open Source fanboys. Open Source code is not a vow of poverty, it's a belief in a philosophy of community strength. This is not at odds with capitalism. Once you understand that, you might have an idea of why Torvalds' criticisms have validity.
it still doesn't come across very well
It comes across just fine, as long as you are able to recognize the legitamacy of both sides in the conflict. Even when defending such peaceful debates as what editor to use, you tend to make extremely fanatical comments within the discourse.
McAfee is implying that their research indicates that OSS has done a lot of damage. In summary, OSS allows irresponsible and careless (or payed) angry adolescents to develop quicker and easier than going to school. Malcontents have access to tools that were only available to software development houses that sold commercial products, previously. This is why malware is so much more advanced.
/. is an excellent platform for that.
I don't know if that conclusion is sound, but there is no evidence to the contrary and malware certainly has become staggeringly advanced. McAfee would probably know better than to issue such a statement without actually being sure. So you can claim that you know more than McAfee and it's all BS.
Personally, I think it's probably true. That's not to say it's a bad thing that their job is rougher. The concept of a separate vendor to combat bugs in an OS is just a rough spot in the evolution of OS development.
Please keep the knee-jerk critical analysis to more simple problems, like where to shop for gas. Hawking's question is meaningless flamebait taken WAY too seriously. Then come the comments from people who know it all, of course.
Never ever say "That's something we don't want/need to know." Investigate and study everything.
I dont want nor need to know how it feels to slide down a razor buck naked, nor how it tastes to drink a bucket of monkey snot. If you're drunk I can undestand a failure in logic. If you're just stupid, I can't help that.
It should be interesting to note that there are no PRESERVED articles advocating preparing for a new ice-age because junk science never got published, unlike now. It's more likely that any evidence contradicting the "greenhouse effect" would be discarded in the 90's when the web was being populated. It's rather difficult (in most cases impossible) to pull the 70's news footage from the rotting reels which was the way that I was made aware of the scare. It's really quite scary that there's a website devoted to proving the opposite of what I WATCHED happen (new Ice Age scare).
Here's a bibliography of climate change literature from the 1970s. The closest thing to "worrying about a new ice age" in the whole list is a paper predicting that one could arrive within thousands, maybe even hundreds of years.
As you weren't alive for it, I was. It was predicted by a number of scientists in both Europe and the United States. It's interesting that you can find anything on the internet claiming to prove the opposite of fact.
Also I would just as soon not be killed off.
I would bet you drive a car. Hard to take such hypocritical alarmists seriously when you can't even put your own safety in perspective.
The rate and amount of change seem to indicate that we're already beyond the normal range of variation
That statement is completely nonsensical. The rate of iPods or number of Dodo's may seem to indicate that we're already beyond the normal range of variation.
I am wondering why so many educated people actually think global warming is a PROBLEM when in the 70's (which you probably weren't alive for) everyone was worrying about the beginning of a new ice age, given the cooler temperatures, on average. Everyone wants their lifetime to be a turning point. Everyone wants fame as a herald. It just hasn't come CLOSE to being proven that there is a crisis.
Luckily, the Earth environment is VERY robust and would kill off the offending causes of massive temperature shifts. Even if there were a crisis, I wouldn't be worrying about it. I have to wonder why you would and why it's so OBVIOUS now.
PSI is both difficult to setup and use; as far as IMs go. The immaturity of the client (PSI) is quite evident from the complex and unforgiving error messages like "Reason:". Jabber messages to particular services can be (permanently?) blocked via certain gateway servers being arbitrarily blocked, for various reasons at random intervals! Technically superior yes. Practically more useful, no. When a client cant reach your universal messenger when you're online, you'd have to go back and install another client? That defeats the purpose.
I do not agree that PSI is a better choice. I can't professionally recommend a program that is not the best for a client TODAY, I wouldn't recommend it for the random passer-by until it was honestly the best solution.
"Encription" as you so eloquently put it, is not the only factor. I know you're a fanboy, but try to reason why PSI is BETTER than GAIM.
All evidence points to World of Diablo. The suggestions that World of SC should even be made, are mere pipedreams and wishful thinking. When your reason is so completely ursurpt, you should probably stop with the games and go outside.
A new, more reliable weapon, they say, would help the nation reduce its stockpile.
In the Bush administration, it's opposite day, all day. The single redeeming quality of the movie Contact, was a very poingant truth about the US Government. "Why buy 1 when you can buy 2 at twice the price?" 6500 bombs are for 6500 targets. The targets are more numerous today, not less. This will not reduce the stockpile. However, this is good for the US. Just don't believe the lies that are made to protect you!
If you want something blah blah blah and secure...you haven't defined secure well enough. Once you decide what you want, security becomes a near all-or-nothing endeavor. GAIM is what you want for secure and a heterogenous collection of messengers ppl are bound to come from. Why PSI and NET SEND are even being suggested, is pure moderation trolling.
It's fairly apparent he's just saying things to get noticed at this point. The more sane approach would be to focus on improving humanity. Genetically enhancing intelligence and space adaptations (or harsh environment) are infinitely more plausible and more constructive than throwing around the idea that world governments are competent enough to make stable colonies, without a fundamental shift in human evolution.
Simplified, work on making smart people first. Worry about expansion AFTER that.
Welcome to 1990 when I ordered mailers to check out pricing on most of these gadgets. /. Article link.
Site links to ads.
Profit!
It wouldn't necessarily be ethical to attempt to find the owner if there is a lost and found procedure (in a US bank where scraps of personal information are a potential LIABILITY, this is part of the audit). Either way, picking up the thumb drive and accessing the information are a series of unethical acts. Expecting people to act in a proper manner, is not unethical. Trying to safeguard people from their own inpropriety, is a pointless slippery slope.