Re:"Object Orientated Perl" LOL! It's a joke right
on
Object Oriented Perl
·
· Score: 1
Perl is not the language of choice for anyone interested in doing some serious OO programming
If your primary objective is `serious OO programming' rather than getting some specific job done, then you are seriously in need of a life.
Perl is a language useful for some tasks. OO techniques are a useful tool for handling some types of complexity. If you have a task for which perl is suited and bits have the types of complexity OO ideas are good for, you win.
You cannot order up a search warrant in the U.S. to force a person to decrypt his own encrypted messages or data files. That doesn't fall under the rubric of a search warrant.
The point, surely, is that a law to put in place such a rule would change the rubric of search warrants. It would add decrypting your data allongside opening locked cupboards to the list of things the searching officers could demand of you.
Considering how over-saturated current intelligence agencies are, I really feel sorry for them starting an initiative like this - it will only address a small subset of the people they want to track.
Actually the UK (and I suspect US) intelligence agencies are under ratehr than over stretched. Since their pals on the other side of the iron curtain stopped playing they have been thrashing around looking for a role (ie a way to avoid having to go out and get real jobs). MI5 is trying to convince us it is useful for dealing with terrorists and criminals. This new centre is just another stage in that.
First off, YOU (yes, YOU) are not interesting enough for them to watch you.
How do you know? As it happens this week's enemies of society of choice are refugees and people seeking asylum and I don't fit that bill. However next week it could be me.
Besides which I am more worried about `them' using this kind of infrastructure to peek at those they consider political threats. Anything which gives the government of the day the ability such a huge political tool not available to their oponents is a big step towards a de-facto one party state.
Your system administrator should be feared much more than any "global eavesdropping network"
This is no problem for the sane. I wouldn't do anything even vaguely interesting on a system where I didn't trust the admin. Much beyond `vaguely interesting' I'd want to be the admin.
On the issue of what the world would be like without patents.
Consider some company in some business where things have to be created (medicines, software, spark plugs, whatever).
They could not create anything new, not make any money and starve. Not viable.
So, they have to create something new and a bit better than the competition, patent or no patent.
What would the lack of patents change. Well, the only thing a patent really does for us (as opposed to the patenter) is it forces them to publish. So, ideas wouldnot get published.
How bad would that be? I think we are sufficiantly good at reverse enginnering these days that any significant new thing would be understood before the time it would have bee released by the expiry of the patent. This is especially the case for software.
So, what would a 20th Century be like without patents? It seems to me it would be a lot better.
I like to stick to what I know, so the onl thing I can say with reasonable certainty is that software patents are a Bad Thing. I'll have to leave people in other fields to debate the usefulness of patents for them.
I was thinking about what would now get Amazon off my shit list. If they withdrew the case due to customer pressure? Clearly not, the issue is the attitude not the specific action.
I find I don't object to Apple anymore. Maybe a decade or so will let Amazon back into the human race.
I still don't drink Nescafe, and not just because it's foul.
Indeed it's sniping. The problem is who are you a competitor to?
If this works, it's open season, any idiot can patent any obvious technique and harass anyone they don't like through the court system.
The web has been relatively free of this kind of crap up to now, but in other areas there is a big problem, if you're a little guy and can't afford the patent searches and lawyers whole areas are just out of bounds to you.
Can I really go to a customer and say `i can build you a system, but in a few weeks you'll get jumped on by 20 silly legal cases which you can't afford to fight'?
The one click mechanism is just the Right Thing. This is why the patent is so bogus, the mechanism is what any sane person would put in the moment they tried the site out.
As for accidentally buying books, it's pretty hard to accidentally push a button which is way over there. Also you can cancel the order (for some reason I just canceled my outstanding orders) and finally if it does arrive at your door you can send it back and only have lost postage, so it's not a disaster.
Slashdot Mirror
If your primary objective is `serious OO programming' rather than getting some specific job done, then you are seriously in need of a life.
Perl is a language useful for some tasks. OO techniques are a useful tool for handling some types of complexity. If you have a task for which perl is suited and bits have the types of complexity OO ideas are good for, you win.
@foo[--$bar]=~s/$^[3ffkj3n43][[543!x-djf-2]]£jds/% fjfj3[243]fdkjr93432[] unless -e $baz
If you write code like this the problem is you, not the language you choose to dribble in.
The point, surely, is that a law to put in place such a rule would change the rubric of search warrants. It would add decrypting your data allongside opening locked cupboards to the list of things the searching officers could demand of you.
Actually the UK (and I suspect US) intelligence agencies are under ratehr than over stretched. Since their pals on the other side of the iron curtain stopped playing they have been thrashing around looking for a role (ie a way to avoid having to go out and get real jobs). MI5 is trying to convince us it is useful for dealing with terrorists and criminals. This new centre is just another stage in that.
First off, YOU (yes, YOU) are not interesting enough for them to watch you.
How do you know? As it happens this week's enemies of society of choice are refugees and people seeking asylum and I don't fit that bill. However next week it could be me.
Besides which I am more worried about `them' using this kind of infrastructure to peek at those they consider political threats. Anything which gives the government of the day the ability such a huge political tool not available to their oponents is a big step towards a de-facto one party state.
Your system administrator should be feared much more than any "global eavesdropping network"
This is no problem for the sane. I wouldn't do anything even vaguely interesting on a system where I didn't trust the admin. Much beyond `vaguely interesting' I'd want to be the admin.
Consider some company in some business where things have to be created (medicines, software, spark plugs, whatever).
They could not create anything new, not make any money and starve. Not viable.
So, they have to create something new and a bit better than the competition, patent or no patent.
What would the lack of patents change. Well, the only thing a patent really does for us (as opposed to the patenter) is it forces them to publish. So, ideas wouldnot get published.
How bad would that be? I think we are sufficiantly good at reverse enginnering these days that any significant new thing would be understood before the time it would have bee released by the expiry of the patent. This is especially the case for software.
So, what would a 20th Century be like without patents? It seems to me it would be a lot better.
I like to stick to what I know, so the onl thing I can say with reasonable certainty is that software patents are a Bad Thing. I'll have to leave people in other fields to debate the usefulness of patents for them.
I find I don't object to Apple anymore. Maybe a decade or so will let Amazon back into the human race.
I still don't drink Nescafe, and not just because it's foul.
If this works, it's open season, any idiot can patent any obvious technique and harass anyone they don't like through the court system.
The web has been relatively free of this kind of crap up to now, but in other areas there is a big problem, if you're a little guy and can't afford the patent searches and lawyers whole areas are just out of bounds to you.
Can I really go to a customer and say `i can build you a system, but in a few weeks you'll get jumped on by 20 silly legal cases which you can't afford to fight'?
The one click mechanism is just the Right Thing. This is why the patent is so bogus, the mechanism is what any sane person would put in the moment they tried the site out.
As for accidentally buying books, it's pretty hard to accidentally push a button which is way over there. Also you can cancel the order (for some reason I just canceled my outstanding orders) and finally if it does arrive at your door you can send it back and only have lost postage, so it's not a disaster.