Hungarian notation is a means for overcoming a critical flaw in the C language: the lack of type safety.
But Hungarian notation doesn't fix that flaw. It's only as reliable as the programmer who writes the code. In most cases, that means not reliable at all.
I have been bitten before by relying on the Hungarian junk at the start, only to discover an hour later that it was completely unrelated to the actual type.
Hungarian notation gives the illusion of improved type safety. It achieves nothing. If you want type safety then use a language that supports type safety.
Switch to FreeBSD, and you'll get a choice of the "always up to date but sometimes unstable" -CURRENT, the "mostly up to date and generally stable" -STABLE, or the "completely stable, security fixes only" -RELEASE branches. All of which allow you to rebuild the entire system whenever you like.
The only downside is having to put up with the BSD bigots. I swear they're even worse than the "drop Windows and use Linux" bigots.
Ad hominem is a fallacy. It can never be a logical complaint. All that matters is whether their arguements are sound or not, NOT the person who states said arguements.
Thus I repeat myself: debunk the arguements. The person who says them is irrelevant. The same arguements will be right or wrong no matter who is asserting them.
Ad hominem is an attack against the person. I think the fallacy you're looking for is "Argument From Authority".
This will never, never, never happen in the US. Our population is too large
What does that have to do with anything?
and, in general, the class divide too wide for the GOP to ever let this happen. Not saying whether it's a good thing either way, but if every American voted in every election, I think you'd see a few more Dems in power.
Doesn't that just reinforce the motive to change? Not because they're Democrats but because you think the current system puts the wrong people in power.
Second Linux is Circling Windows from all sides. From big iron servers to cell phones. This means that the interoperability issue will become less and less. One day you will wake up and realize that it is actually smarter to ditch Windows than try to keep it in sync with it's surroundings.
The big day is when you realise that you're no longer modifying Linux to work in the Windows environment, but you're instead modifying Windows to work in the Linux environment.
For those musicians who are original and are making what I like to call "real music", it would be nice to have a little extra money to get their music out to the public.
Yeah, and settlements against 12 year olds who download Oops I Did It Again... I bet that money goes straight into helping those musicians making real music.
Re:You misunderstand the World.
on
FreeBSD 4.9 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
GPL software == software with huge limitations on how it can be used.
The GPL imposes no limitations on how the software can be used. Quoth the GPL:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
GPL and BSD software are equally free in terms of use.
What I'm complaining about is that he's making claims based on the value of the writing in the book based upon rules that are set up to achieve something else. He's treating the rules as something to be followed for the sake of following them.
But what's wrong with that? Commenting on the literary quality - the adherence to "rules" - is perfectly valid.
Think of it this way. There's no denying that Britney Spears is entertaining. I'm not a fan and I turn the TV off when she's on, but I'm clearly in the minority. But I don't think any reasonable person would claim she's a good singer. Her voice is grating and her notes are off-key. The objective measure of her singing ability is devastating, no matter what the subjective or popular opinion might be.
On the other hand, Bette Midler (another singer who doesn't entertain me in the slightest) is quite a good singer. She has brilliant vocal control over volume and pitch. She can maintain a note for incredible duration. Objectively she's a brilliant singer, once again no matter what the subjective or popular opinion might be.
Where am I leading? There is an objective measure of a singer's skill. For singing it is the pitch and volume control, the tonal qualities, the ability to maintain rhythm, etc. You can comment on the objective qualities of singing. These are the "rules" of singing, if you like.
There are similar objective measures of writing. If an author chooses to ignore the rules then that is fine, as long as the author has the skill to pull it off. Stories that break the rules are exciting because they do something different. However JK Rowling didn't do anything different with her writing. Her writing style is dull and unimaginative. She breaks the rules and lacks the skill to pull it off. Her stories show incredible imagination and her writing style is popular - no denying that! - but she is no literary genius.
And as I said before, it's not snobbery to point this out. I'm certain JK Rowling isn't losing any sleep over the snide comments from the literary crowd... the millions of dollars she's making must compensate any grief she might feel.
As an aside, singing off-key isn't necessarily a bad quality - some artists use off-key notes to spectacular effect - but in Spear's case she simply lacks the talent to sing in tune.
Oh, and in closing -- I normally dislike poetry as well, but Robert Frost is an exception, and, I think, worth glancing at.
Oh, god no. I detest his poetry. But I don't deny that he's brilliant (and very popular).
To be fair, the only reason Slashdot keeps posting these Microsoft articles (count 'em...at least three in the past two DAYS!) is because all the Linux people have a field day bashing and bashing and bashing.
And other people immediately complain about the "unfairness" of Slashdot, and get moderated up to +5 insightful.
Yeah, so an opposing point of view given equal forum and exposure, that sounds really unfair.
I read an AP article by an English professor about the Harry Potter books (which I also haven't read) about how the books were basically poorly written crap that didn't compare with classical literature, and on how depressing it is that our society now considers *this* good literature. He particularly panned the use of cliches. To me, that seems ridiculous. If most people enjoy a book, then it's doing a good job of being entertaining, at least for a certain target audience.
The HP books are poorly written crap. They aren't literature. But they are entertaining. I don't see why you got your knickers in a knot over the professor's comments. He's commenting on the low quality of writing. You're commenting on the entertainment value. It's not even the same conversation. Both viewpoints are valid and can coexist.
I agree with the professor: it's depressing that people prefer low-brow crap like HP instead of decent literature. But people also prefer Macdonalds and Monster Truck Rallys. It is depressing that most people are not intellectual giants. Most people prefer whizzy lights and boom boom noises rather than thoughtful contemplation. It's not snobbery to point this out. It's simply an observation of reality.
PS: I'm not an exception to the rule. I like Monster Truck Rallys too. I can't stand opera. Poetry bores me to death. I like classical music but I also like death metal. Go figure. There's no accounting for taste.
Heh. I work at the university helpdesk. I had some to-be-frosh's mom call in- she wanted to know what kind of computer to get. So, the conversation went on and on about what the kid needed, etc. And we get to the end of it, and she's like: "Oh, and he said he needs something called an 'iPod.' It's a neccesary computer accessory." And I cracked up, wishing I had a dumb, rich mom (or just doubly dumb, willing to go into debt, which is more likely) to try something like that out on.
She's not dumb just because she doesn't know the names of all the latest fad products in the computer business.
Most of you don't have the legal background to really post anything saying who has what leg to stand on(but when has that stopped anyone). And yes, that includes your open source heroes. All of the stuff they write, etc. etc. It doesn't amount to shit but someone's opinion. And that opinion counts for about as much as my opinion on lunar colonization.
I don't have any legal background but Eben Moglen (professor of law) and Pamela Jones (paralegal) and about half a dozen regular/. readers (lawyers) do.
They all say SCO is full of shit.
So, the question you should be asking is, worst case scenario, what happens? Then, what do you do about it?
Go back to Linux 2.2. Darl and Blake have both stated publicly and in court-filed documents that there are no SCO-related IP issues with 2.2.
A. Make everyone walk, take the bus, and drive smaller cars.
B. Invent an SUV that gets 100 miles to the gallon (preferably a gallon of H20).
It amazes me how many geeks reach for the social engineering solution instead of the ingenious, creative technical response that is the hallmark of geekdom.
Three comments.
If the heavy bulky SUV gets 100MPG with this "creative" engine then a smaller lighter compact car will get 250MPG. Building a better engine never justifies carrying 2 or 3 tonnes of car around with you.
It's a mistake to expect technology will fix all of societies problems. You can't sit on your hands, doing nothing, hoping that some brilliant person somewhere will invent the solution.
The truly geeky solution involves no cars at all. Everybody would be using sliding platforms like in Asimov's Caves of Steel. Or cities would be designed in modular fashion where everything you need is within walking distance. Or public transport would be so damn good that you simply don't want to have a car. A better SUV is not creative.
There are real world examples of this - the idea that prime numbers are an infinite series, for example. Since nobody has ever been able to find an end to the series, it still stands, but you can't *prove* it.
What an absolute nonsense. That primes are an infinite series was proven centuries ago.
can't SCO get the linux source code, and compare it to their own closed source code, and see what is the same? i thought their claim was that IBM just dumped a bunch of their UNIX code into linux... wouldnt it be easy to find?
The running theory on Groklaw is that there isn't any code in common (and not from BSD origins) between Linux and SCO's SYSV. So SCO can't perform the comparison on their own. Instead, SCO is claiming that there are similarities between Linux and IBM's AIX. SCO also claims that their magical mystical license gives SCO unprecedented powers to control how IBM uses code that IBM writes. So SCO wants IBM to compare the Linux and AIX codebases and thereby give SCO their "evidence" of misappropriation.
In other words, SCO had no evidence coming into this trial and they are fishing for evidence during discovery.
It all makes one wonder where SCO's "rocket scientists from MIT" have gone, if they ever existed.
Hate to be a nitpicker, but SMB/CIFS is a technology developed by IBM in 1984.
I'm going to be an even bigger nitpicker. SMB is the technology developed by IBM. CIFS is an extension to SMB developed by Microsoft though cynical people say that CIFS is more a marketing exercise than a new protocol.
It strikes me that the sort of plants you propose involve a lot more structure, pressurised pipes, moving parts, etc - and how do the efficiency/cost figures work out? Wouldit be better to use 30%+ efficient solar cells rather than water pipes at the focus of the mirrors? Or is it just better to use banks of cells, with no moving parts, if they are at the right price?
Photovoltaic cells are typically mounted on motors so they can track the sun.
Yes, the two designs I described require a large upfront investment. I don't know enough about the details to explain why they choose thermal designs instead of photovoltaic designs, but if the engineers made that decision then I'm confident they had good reasons. Remember that we're talking megawatt plants with lifetimes of 20-30 years. The designers are solving problems that we probably aren't even aware of.
From the poor-quality pictures on the website, this appears to be a shaped metal template which you copy onto a piece of wood with a router (a kind of jigsaw?).
A router is a very high speed cutting tool primarily used for making decorative edges though you can also use it for trimming edges, cutting grooves, rounding edges, creating tongues, etc. It's more like a drill than a jigsaw though the cutting edges are different to drills. If you've ever seen a dremel with a milling bit then imagine something 10x bigger and 100x more dangerous.
Am I missing something? That seems a pretty simple thing - not the kind of thing you'd expect to make millions selling, or be able to force people to agree to such a licence to use. Does it have some magical properties not apparent to a guy who failed woodwork?
A dovetail jig lets you create two types of edges. These edges interlock to create an incredibly strong right-angle join with no nails and no screws. The dovetail shape determines the properties of the join and every jig vendor vigorously defends their unique shape. It's an identity thing. It's not magical, but I can understand why they're trying to prevent people copying their jigs.
Take note that dovetail jigs are fairly modern (as are routers). The dovetail joint is ancient (1000s of years?) but was traditionally done with a handsaw and a chisel. It takes an extremely skilled person to create a good dovetail joint by hand. The dovetail jig allows any semi-skilled amateur to make incredibly good dovetail joints in just a few minutes. Any hobbyist worth his (or her) salt has a dovetail jig.
This is why I like Slashdot. Not just one, but two medics are posting comments on this thread. I also regularly read comments from lawyers, doctors, engineers, accountants, physicists, chemists, professors, firefighters, etc.
Communities are more valuable when there is strong representation by many groups. Slashdot seems to be dominated by computer-jockeys, but it's great that it's not just computer-jockeys.
Slashdot Mirror
But Hungarian notation doesn't fix that flaw. It's only as reliable as the programmer who writes the code. In most cases, that means not reliable at all.
I have been bitten before by relying on the Hungarian junk at the start, only to discover an hour later that it was completely unrelated to the actual type.
Hungarian notation gives the illusion of improved type safety. It achieves nothing. If you want type safety then use a language that supports type safety.
The only downside is having to put up with the BSD bigots. I swear they're even worse than the "drop Windows and use Linux" bigots.
That sounds more like an administrative definition. I'm pretty sure the scientists would turn to something like the Turing test.
Ad hominem is an attack against the person. I think the fallacy you're looking for is "Argument From Authority".
What does that have to do with anything?
Doesn't that just reinforce the motive to change? Not because they're Democrats but because you think the current system puts the wrong people in power.
I wish /.ers wouldn't speak in the third person.
The big day is when you realise that you're no longer modifying Linux to work in the Windows environment, but you're instead modifying Windows to work in the Linux environment.
Honestly I think Linus's "Software patents are bad" is perfect.
I find this entire thread extremely funny.
Yeah, and settlements against 12 year olds who download Oops I Did It Again... I bet that money goes straight into helping those musicians making real music.
Hahahaha.
I think they call it "Butane".
The GPL imposes no limitations on how the software can be used. Quoth the GPL:
GPL and BSD software are equally free in terms of use.
But what's wrong with that? Commenting on the literary quality - the adherence to "rules" - is perfectly valid.
Think of it this way. There's no denying that Britney Spears is entertaining. I'm not a fan and I turn the TV off when she's on, but I'm clearly in the minority. But I don't think any reasonable person would claim she's a good singer. Her voice is grating and her notes are off-key. The objective measure of her singing ability is devastating, no matter what the subjective or popular opinion might be.
On the other hand, Bette Midler (another singer who doesn't entertain me in the slightest) is quite a good singer. She has brilliant vocal control over volume and pitch. She can maintain a note for incredible duration. Objectively she's a brilliant singer, once again no matter what the subjective or popular opinion might be.
Where am I leading? There is an objective measure of a singer's skill. For singing it is the pitch and volume control, the tonal qualities, the ability to maintain rhythm, etc. You can comment on the objective qualities of singing. These are the "rules" of singing, if you like.
There are similar objective measures of writing. If an author chooses to ignore the rules then that is fine, as long as the author has the skill to pull it off. Stories that break the rules are exciting because they do something different. However JK Rowling didn't do anything different with her writing. Her writing style is dull and unimaginative. She breaks the rules and lacks the skill to pull it off. Her stories show incredible imagination and her writing style is popular - no denying that! - but she is no literary genius.
And as I said before, it's not snobbery to point this out. I'm certain JK Rowling isn't losing any sleep over the snide comments from the literary crowd... the millions of dollars she's making must compensate any grief she might feel.
As an aside, singing off-key isn't necessarily a bad quality - some artists use off-key notes to spectacular effect - but in Spear's case she simply lacks the talent to sing in tune.
Oh, god no. I detest his poetry. But I don't deny that he's brilliant (and very popular).
And other people immediately complain about the "unfairness" of Slashdot, and get moderated up to +5 insightful.
Yeah, so an opposing point of view given equal forum and exposure, that sounds really unfair.
The HP books are poorly written crap. They aren't literature. But they are entertaining. I don't see why you got your knickers in a knot over the professor's comments. He's commenting on the low quality of writing. You're commenting on the entertainment value. It's not even the same conversation. Both viewpoints are valid and can coexist.
I agree with the professor: it's depressing that people prefer low-brow crap like HP instead of decent literature. But people also prefer Macdonalds and Monster Truck Rallys. It is depressing that most people are not intellectual giants. Most people prefer whizzy lights and boom boom noises rather than thoughtful contemplation. It's not snobbery to point this out. It's simply an observation of reality.
PS: I'm not an exception to the rule. I like Monster Truck Rallys too. I can't stand opera. Poetry bores me to death. I like classical music but I also like death metal. Go figure. There's no accounting for taste.
She's not dumb just because she doesn't know the names of all the latest fad products in the computer business.
I don't have any legal background but Eben Moglen (professor of law) and Pamela Jones (paralegal) and about half a dozen regular /. readers (lawyers) do.
They all say SCO is full of shit.
Go back to Linux 2.2. Darl and Blake have both stated publicly and in court-filed documents that there are no SCO-related IP issues with 2.2.
Three comments.
If the heavy bulky SUV gets 100MPG with this "creative" engine then a smaller lighter compact car will get 250MPG. Building a better engine never justifies carrying 2 or 3 tonnes of car around with you.
It's a mistake to expect technology will fix all of societies problems. You can't sit on your hands, doing nothing, hoping that some brilliant person somewhere will invent the solution.
The truly geeky solution involves no cars at all. Everybody would be using sliding platforms like in Asimov's Caves of Steel. Or cities would be designed in modular fashion where everything you need is within walking distance. Or public transport would be so damn good that you simply don't want to have a car. A better SUV is not creative.
What an absolute nonsense. That primes are an infinite series was proven centuries ago.
The running theory on Groklaw is that there isn't any code in common (and not from BSD origins) between Linux and SCO's SYSV. So SCO can't perform the comparison on their own. Instead, SCO is claiming that there are similarities between Linux and IBM's AIX. SCO also claims that their magical mystical license gives SCO unprecedented powers to control how IBM uses code that IBM writes. So SCO wants IBM to compare the Linux and AIX codebases and thereby give SCO their "evidence" of misappropriation.
In other words, SCO had no evidence coming into this trial and they are fishing for evidence during discovery.
It all makes one wonder where SCO's "rocket scientists from MIT" have gone, if they ever existed.
I'm going to be an even bigger nitpicker. SMB is the technology developed by IBM. CIFS is an extension to SMB developed by Microsoft though cynical people say that CIFS is more a marketing exercise than a new protocol.
Info on SMB and CIFS.
Jeremy: 1, Coward: 0
Photovoltaic cells are typically mounted on motors so they can track the sun.
Yes, the two designs I described require a large upfront investment. I don't know enough about the details to explain why they choose thermal designs instead of photovoltaic designs, but if the engineers made that decision then I'm confident they had good reasons. Remember that we're talking megawatt plants with lifetimes of 20-30 years. The designers are solving problems that we probably aren't even aware of.
A router is a very high speed cutting tool primarily used for making decorative edges though you can also use it for trimming edges, cutting grooves, rounding edges, creating tongues, etc. It's more like a drill than a jigsaw though the cutting edges are different to drills. If you've ever seen a dremel with a milling bit then imagine something 10x bigger and 100x more dangerous.
A dovetail jig lets you create two types of edges. These edges interlock to create an incredibly strong right-angle join with no nails and no screws. The dovetail shape determines the properties of the join and every jig vendor vigorously defends their unique shape. It's an identity thing. It's not magical, but I can understand why they're trying to prevent people copying their jigs.
Take note that dovetail jigs are fairly modern (as are routers). The dovetail joint is ancient (1000s of years?) but was traditionally done with a handsaw and a chisel. It takes an extremely skilled person to create a good dovetail joint by hand. The dovetail jig allows any semi-skilled amateur to make incredibly good dovetail joints in just a few minutes. Any hobbyist worth his (or her) salt has a dovetail jig.
This is why I like Slashdot. Not just one, but two medics are posting comments on this thread. I also regularly read comments from lawyers, doctors, engineers, accountants, physicists, chemists, professors, firefighters, etc. Communities are more valuable when there is strong representation by many groups. Slashdot seems to be dominated by computer-jockeys, but it's great that it's not just computer-jockeys.