Either a wanker or an extremely clever commenter on the true value of human inspection. I suspect the poster was a wanker, but, oh, my, do I hope that he or she was extremely clever.
Read the GP post again. Carefully. You have the source, Luke -- and, on the basis of your inspection, you missed the second-order instance of the problem of Trusting Trust.
(I don't know if the GP meant his or her post to be a direct attack on the frequent comment that "well, you have the source and can inspect it, after all", but if he or she did, congrats.)
Zimbra was the best complete competitor to Office-Exchange; which probably explains why MS got its cronies Yahoo to buy Zimbra at an atrocious price point. I think the key phrase there is "atrocious price point". Do you think that the Zimbra team would have sold out at "an atrocious price point" if they were being even vaguely successful? What do you think that says about Zimbra's actual success?
It's good to see the FLOSS zealots are still busily administering auto-proctoscopies. It gives me peace of mind to know that some things never change.
Our license entails the statement "If you distribute this source code, then any recipient can take it private. If you don't redistribute this source code, then you can do anything you please." What that means is that those who choose to redistribute the source (e.g. you folks) have burdens not borne by those who take the code private.
Yes, that really does mean what it says -- you can take our code private as a binary without given us a thing, but if you preserve the source, you have to give us credit.
No: taking the BSD license OFF the code drives us nuts. You're free to incorporate our code and give us no credit. We object if you take that right from a downstream user. If you dual license, you don't take that freedom away. If you replace the license, you do.
We want to encourage people to use our code if it's the best code for the task. Period. You want to undermine copyright. Well, you're free to do that, but some of us don't think that's a good idea, and others of us don't think it's that important.
Does anybody else think that there's a parallel here with the capture of a certain terrorist currently living in the hills on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border?
writing a virus to control a 50,000 node botnet isn't experience I don't think I agree with this. Under the right circumstances, almost any top software company would absolutely snap up someone who'd written an effective and stable worm toolkit.
Actually, the FreeBSD team is committed to building a truly free set of binutils, and they already have a number of high quality truly free compilers. It just hasn't been as convenient to use them as gcc recently. AFAIK, the FreeBSD kernel still builds with pcc, though.
Fission is here right now. Fusion? Buddy, I hate to tell you this, but the folks who are working on fusion are really really smart, and really really dedicated -- and they have failed for 55 years and counting. Not through lack of trying or lack of funding, but because the problem is infinitely harder that the people who aren't in the field can imagine.
The only way fusion is coming as a viable power source in the next three decades is on the backs of those flower-fed ponies from Iraq.
Uh...you have diesels that get 180 MPG in the city, yet can power a medium weight 4WD SUV, like mine? Wow. That's really impressive. (And, yes, my SUV gets 30 MPG. I drive a Hybrid Escape.)
Here's a hint: why is the Earth's core molten? When answering, bear in mind that Mercury's, for instance, is not, and neither is Venus'. The amount of energy required to heat the Earth's core and keep it molten is many orders of magnitude greater than the solar flux at our surface. (Which is a good thing, seeing as the surface would be molten if it were otherwise.) Stumped? Go look up "Kelvin's age of the Earth paradox" and a guy named Becquerel.
We're going to still have enough U238 and Th232 to keep the core molten (barely) when the scales reverse, at the point when the Sun moves off the main sequence for good and all and evaporates the planet.
Really? Do you know how Germany pays for its "more efficient" lifestyle? You know, the one with the exponentially increasing energy consumption levels? By buying (nuclear generated) electricity from France. Italy does the same thing.
You might want to find out about the truth on European energy markets. It's completely true that the EU nations do a much better job of avoiding CO2 emissions -- for which they should be praised -- but it isn't through energy efficiency, but rather by source replacement.
The only good way to do nuclear is to place an unshielded reactor at sufficient distance from the Earth, and simply catch its radiation. Ah. So you oppose geothermal power usage? Bully for you.
So, modern society is destined to only last a few hundred years, maybe a thousand? Have you got any idea how much readily available Th232 and U238 there is in the Earth's crust?
Your source lists a set of theoretical problems, none of which has been realized in almost three decades of testing. The one "example" of an issue is a stuck pebble being incorrectly handled during the very early experimentation with pebble bed reactors -- which led to a redesign of the reactor to fix the problem.
Renewables are not going to provide enough energy, ever. Yes, they should be used -- but there is no way we will ever be able to extract the exawatt we need for modern society from renewable sources. We have no choice but to make nuclear power work, and the longer we pretend otherwise, the more trouble we're going to be in, both economically and ecologically.
Yes, Python is dynamically typed, and, yes, intellisense can't work in cases where the signature of a type is changed by the program during execution. That's also true of C#, however; reflection affects all syntactically-driven editors.
Slashdot Mirror
A better solution would be to space the dots in order to generate a Moire pattern when the image is scanned or photographed.
Either a wanker or an extremely clever commenter on the true value of human inspection. I suspect the poster was a wanker, but, oh, my, do I hope that he or she was extremely clever.
Read the GP post again. Carefully. You have the source, Luke -- and, on the basis of your inspection, you missed the second-order instance of the problem of Trusting Trust.
(I don't know if the GP meant his or her post to be a direct attack on the frequent comment that "well, you have the source and can inspect it, after all", but if he or she did, congrats.)
It's good to see the FLOSS zealots are still busily administering auto-proctoscopies. It gives me peace of mind to know that some things never change.
Oh. You don't live in Europe or Australia, then? Perhaps Korea..no, not there either.
Nor China.
Oh. Of course! Hey, cool! What color is the sky on your planet?
You might want to fact-check your data there, Mr. Cavuto.
Want to provide evidence for that claim? I think you'll find examples very thin on the ground indeed.
Our license entails the statement "If you distribute this source code, then any recipient can take it private. If you don't redistribute this source code, then you can do anything you please." What that means is that those who choose to redistribute the source (e.g. you folks) have burdens not borne by those who take the code private.
Yes, that really does mean what it says -- you can take our code private as a binary without given us a thing, but if you preserve the source, you have to give us credit.
No: taking the BSD license OFF the code drives us nuts. You're free to incorporate our code and give us no credit. We object if you take that right from a downstream user. If you dual license, you don't take that freedom away. If you replace the license, you do.
We want to encourage people to use our code if it's the best code for the task. Period. You want to undermine copyright. Well, you're free to do that, but some of us don't think that's a good idea, and others of us don't think it's that important.
Does anybody else think that there's a parallel here with the capture of a certain terrorist currently living in the hills on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border?
Actually, the FreeBSD team is committed to building a truly free set of binutils, and they already have a number of high quality truly free compilers. It just hasn't been as convenient to use them as gcc recently. AFAIK, the FreeBSD kernel still builds with pcc, though.
Yup, success is just around the corner. And the people who are resisting fusion are just a bunch of dead enders.
And the check is in the mail, and I'll respect you in the morning.
Fission is here right now. Fusion? Buddy, I hate to tell you this, but the folks who are working on fusion are really really smart, and really really dedicated -- and they have failed for 55 years and counting. Not through lack of trying or lack of funding, but because the problem is infinitely harder that the people who aren't in the field can imagine.
The only way fusion is coming as a viable power source in the next three decades is on the backs of those flower-fed ponies from Iraq.
The new reactors are being shipped in on the ponies we're getting from Iraq, right?
Uh...you have diesels that get 180 MPG in the city, yet can power a medium weight 4WD SUV, like mine? Wow. That's really impressive. (And, yes, my SUV gets 30 MPG. I drive a Hybrid Escape.)
Um, dude? You've got your scales backwards.
Here's a hint: why is the Earth's core molten? When answering, bear in mind that Mercury's, for instance, is not, and neither is Venus'. The amount of energy required to heat the Earth's core and keep it molten is many orders of magnitude greater than the solar flux at our surface. (Which is a good thing, seeing as the surface would be molten if it were otherwise.) Stumped? Go look up "Kelvin's age of the Earth paradox" and a guy named Becquerel.
We're going to still have enough U238 and Th232 to keep the core molten (barely) when the scales reverse, at the point when the Sun moves off the main sequence for good and all and evaporates the planet.
Really? Do you know how Germany pays for its "more efficient" lifestyle? You know, the one with the exponentially increasing energy consumption levels? By buying (nuclear generated) electricity from France. Italy does the same thing.
You might want to find out about the truth on European energy markets. It's completely true that the EU nations do a much better job of avoiding CO2 emissions -- for which they should be praised -- but it isn't through energy efficiency, but rather by source replacement.
Your source lists a set of theoretical problems, none of which has been realized in almost three decades of testing. The one "example" of an issue is a stuck pebble being incorrectly handled during the very early experimentation with pebble bed reactors -- which led to a redesign of the reactor to fix the problem.
Renewables are not going to provide enough energy, ever. Yes, they should be used -- but there is no way we will ever be able to extract the exawatt we need for modern society from renewable sources. We have no choice but to make nuclear power work, and the longer we pretend otherwise, the more trouble we're going to be in, both economically and ecologically.
More like perl.
class foo:
blah
blah
def outsideFoo(gnoo):
return gnoo
foo.noo = outsideFoo
print foo.noo(7)
is valid Python.
Yes, Python is dynamically typed, and, yes, intellisense can't work in cases where the signature of a type is changed by the program during execution. That's also true of C#, however; reflection affects all syntactically-driven editors.
Yes, there's an extension which supports Python.
(Oops -- you mean VS supports extensions? But TFA says that's unique to Eclipse!)