There are a thousand ways to change code without it being obvious that it is changed. Especially when you control the distribution of binaries. I'm not sure why China would bother with something as insidious as a gcc or g++ hack, but they could if they were intent on it. Also, they could just distribute modified libraries and not tell anyone they don't match the source. Granted, some people might slip through, but who really builds their entire OS from source repeatedly? I know, BSD and Gentoo, but we're talking about people who actually have work to do, and who obviously use a binary distro.
I came in a bit late, and stopped watching after that scene. I'll have to give the whole thing a chance sometime. My problem with humanity explicitly spelling out the logic he uses to kill himself, rather than letting the robot arrive at it on his own still stands.
I don't think there was any good reason for this to be tagged 'cunt,' and unless the current iteration of the tag system is just showing me what I said, people seem to agree. However, now we've got this nonsensical !cunt tag on the article, all because of some tag troll. And the !cunt moderation is almost as bad as the cunt moderation, being completely pointless and not belonging on the front page. I think maybe we need some karma weighting and maybe meta-moderation on tags or something to stop this tag trolling crap from showing up.
Advantages that have nothing to do with libraries, and can be traced back to the combination of (a) functional programming and (b) the perfect syntax that Python offers. I would truly be amazed to see anyone writing the same logic in C++ in anything less than 3 times the lines of code I wrote in Python.
Though I have better things to do than actually try, looking over the code FTFA, I have to say that I think a transliteration of this code into Scheme or Lisp would actually look cleaner than Python. And I do know that that would deal with the problem the writer ran into, namely that Python has an absurdly low recursion limit.
I do like Python's syntax (for anything under 100 lines of code) but calling it a model of functional programming is just silly.
Your elder sibling essentially already said this, but I'll make it a bit clearer: 70% of the energy that goes into the car's batteries will be coming from coal plants. Even with 100% efficiency, you're not gaining anything compared to gas. Granted, we have slightly larger coal reserves. But they're still finite, and if we're just trying to stretch our resources out for an extra century, there's no reason to stop using gas until it runs out, since we'll just waste energy when we run out of coal and have to switch back.
It has nothing to do with requiring software to be viral. In those terms, the CDDL is just as viral as the GPL. You can never link CDDL stuff with GPL stuff, just as surely as if it were proprietary.
*BSD has no such troubles. It is a truly free and open source license.
The CDDL, like the GPL, requires that all derived works be licensed under itself, and subject to the same restrictions and freedoms. The freedoms and restrictions the CDDL provides were chosen not for any careful ideological reason, but really just to piss off GPL adherents, and weaken FOSS, pushing for a more OSS approach, where the free is generally as in beer, but rarely as in speech.
That's probably because every student in my computer science department starts their research at Wikipedia. Honestly, the Wikipedia articles are easy, readable, and accurate. It's usually after reading Wikipedia that I can go back to my Algorithms textbooks and understand what they're saying.
If we're going to nitpick, you could make the same argument against the common defense. It merely says provide for the common defense. It does not say provide the common defense. So giving everyone a shotgun would fulfill its obligations. But it doesn't give everyone a shotgun, it chooses the more effective method of a professional army.
And promoting the general welfare... well welfare does just that. The intention of the text isn't to decide how these things should be done, it's to say that they should be done. Just because you think that something else more effectively serves the purpose, doesn't mean that those of us who disagree with you are acting contrary to the meaning. It just means we are acting contrary to your proposed solution. There's a difference, so please stop trying to turn this into a shouting match. You degrade yourself and the nation.
As any screenplay writer will tell you, it is far easier to turn a short story into a movie than a novel. As such, I would expect them not to attempt the conversion of a set of short stories into a single story arc.
Bicentennial man screwed up two things about Asimov's text. The first was really bad: In Asimov's version, after the robot has himself surgically altered so he dies, he tells the human congress that he did it because he had concluded that they would never accept a human who could live forever. In the movie adaptation, the congress flat-out tells him "Sorry, you're immortal. Men aren't immortal."
It ruins the poignancy of it, because man intentionally drives the robot to death, whereas in Asimov's end, it's unspoken bigotry that drives him to death.
That, and they made his desire to become human all about sex. Honestly, if that's your thing, cool, but don't turn Asimov into stories about robots that want to have sex.
As for I, Robot, I think misguided is an excellent word. They should've done an Asimov work. The result wasn't atrocious, but it wasn't Asimov. When Asimov's robots took over the world, humans though they were in control, and so were quite fine with it (because the robots were, after all, only there to serve humankind.)
Like 99% of the rest of English speaking internet users, I use one browser (firefox).
I'm being a little presumptuous, but I suspect that you, like me, have never looked at browser data for Japanese websites. They are much more tech savvy than we, and I would not be surprised to find that much like the population of Slashdot (myself included) they have a disproportionate share of that made up 1% of internet users that use multiple browsers you quoted.
That's running over Wine, guaranteed to spectacularly fail any sort of speed tests. If I want a speedy browser under Linux, I'll stick with Epiphany. But for most things, I'll just use Firefox.
The thing is, we're so damn close on the moons of Jupiter. All we need to do is break the fucking ice and take a look. Odds are, if there's life, there's something obvious, not just unicellular (though we can easily check for that.)
I'm sure that Jupiter has a lot to teach us, but the moons are just about the only place we've found that actually have a reasonable chance of supporting extra-terrestrial life. I sort of feel like clearing that up is the next step, then we can go back to poking things and seeing what turns up. We probed the moons, we have a sense that there may be something of interest there, we should act on that suspicion before moving on to something else.
When I last tried IE8, it seemed somewhere in between FF1.5 and 2.0, with about half the speed. So really, I'm quite content to wait if they're planning on making IE8 pass FF2.0 by a bit.
You assume that Google is run by money-grubbing whores interested in a monopoly. It's not. They really do produce products so good that no one can compete with them. And the people who work there work there for that reason. They don't work there for money (there's certainly plenty of it) and I see no reason to believe they work there for their shareholders (they have no reason to, they're doing just fine as it is.) If that changes, sure, that might be a problem. But I think that many of the people at Google would pack up and leave if it began defending its monopoly the way MS has. And they'd take their source with them, and we'd all be the better for it.
I see no evidence of anti-competitive behavior on Google's part, and until we see anything, the DoJ wouldn't have a case.
On the other hand, they control most of my sources of evidence.
My roommate when I was working in DC over the summer worked at the DoJ, and they weren't allowed any sort of media. Seems to me the DoD was kind of asleep at the wheel.
Unless Adobe makes a lot of headway with their ARM port, the lack of Flash on cellphones may give you serious reason to consider Gnash, since they're the only ones who've put much thought into multi-architecture compatibility.
I suppose that much would be any in the case of Silverlight. Seems to me it's purely x86.(and 64bit)
Slashdot Mirror
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Someone linked to the trusting trust speech earlier, but here it is again:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html
There are a thousand ways to change code without it being obvious that it is changed. Especially when you control the distribution of binaries. I'm not sure why China would bother with something as insidious as a gcc or g++ hack, but they could if they were intent on it. Also, they could just distribute modified libraries and not tell anyone they don't match the source. Granted, some people might slip through, but who really builds their entire OS from source repeatedly? I know, BSD and Gentoo, but we're talking about people who actually have work to do, and who obviously use a binary distro.
Damn. I guess I'm the one being Anglocentric. Thanks.
I came in a bit late, and stopped watching after that scene. I'll have to give the whole thing a chance sometime. My problem with humanity explicitly spelling out the logic he uses to kill himself, rather than letting the robot arrive at it on his own still stands.
I don't think there was any good reason for this to be tagged 'cunt,' and unless the current iteration of the tag system is just showing me what I said, people seem to agree. However, now we've got this nonsensical !cunt tag on the article, all because of some tag troll. And the !cunt moderation is almost as bad as the cunt moderation, being completely pointless and not belonging on the front page. I think maybe we need some karma weighting and maybe meta-moderation on tags or something to stop this tag trolling crap from showing up.
Though I have better things to do than actually try, looking over the code FTFA, I have to say that I think a transliteration of this code into Scheme or Lisp would actually look cleaner than Python. And I do know that that would deal with the problem the writer ran into, namely that Python has an absurdly low recursion limit.
I do like Python's syntax (for anything under 100 lines of code) but calling it a model of functional programming is just silly.
Your elder sibling essentially already said this, but I'll make it a bit clearer: 70% of the energy that goes into the car's batteries will be coming from coal plants. Even with 100% efficiency, you're not gaining anything compared to gas. Granted, we have slightly larger coal reserves. But they're still finite, and if we're just trying to stretch our resources out for an extra century, there's no reason to stop using gas until it runs out, since we'll just waste energy when we run out of coal and have to switch back.
It has nothing to do with requiring software to be viral. In those terms, the CDDL is just as viral as the GPL. You can never link CDDL stuff with GPL stuff, just as surely as if it were proprietary.
*BSD has no such troubles. It is a truly free and open source license.
The CDDL, like the GPL, requires that all derived works be licensed under itself, and subject to the same restrictions and freedoms. The freedoms and restrictions the CDDL provides were chosen not for any careful ideological reason, but really just to piss off GPL adherents, and weaken FOSS, pushing for a more OSS approach, where the free is generally as in beer, but rarely as in speech.
That's probably because every student in my computer science department starts their research at Wikipedia. Honestly, the Wikipedia articles are easy, readable, and accurate. It's usually after reading Wikipedia that I can go back to my Algorithms textbooks and understand what they're saying.
If we're going to nitpick, you could make the same argument against the common defense. It merely says provide for the common defense. It does not say provide the common defense. So giving everyone a shotgun would fulfill its obligations. But it doesn't give everyone a shotgun, it chooses the more effective method of a professional army.
And promoting the general welfare... well welfare does just that. The intention of the text isn't to decide how these things should be done, it's to say that they should be done. Just because you think that something else more effectively serves the purpose, doesn't mean that those of us who disagree with you are acting contrary to the meaning. It just means we are acting contrary to your proposed solution. There's a difference, so please stop trying to turn this into a shouting match. You degrade yourself and the nation.
As any screenplay writer will tell you, it is far easier to turn a short story into a movie than a novel. As such, I would expect them not to attempt the conversion of a set of short stories into a single story arc.
Bicentennial man screwed up two things about Asimov's text. The first was really bad: In Asimov's version, after the robot has himself surgically altered so he dies, he tells the human congress that he did it because he had concluded that they would never accept a human who could live forever. In the movie adaptation, the congress flat-out tells him "Sorry, you're immortal. Men aren't immortal."
It ruins the poignancy of it, because man intentionally drives the robot to death, whereas in Asimov's end, it's unspoken bigotry that drives him to death.
That, and they made his desire to become human all about sex. Honestly, if that's your thing, cool, but don't turn Asimov into stories about robots that want to have sex.
As for I, Robot, I think misguided is an excellent word. They should've done an Asimov work. The result wasn't atrocious, but it wasn't Asimov. When Asimov's robots took over the world, humans though they were in control, and so were quite fine with it (because the robots were, after all, only there to serve humankind.)
Are we talking hardware or software? Because I'd be really impressed if it was something a quick
dd if=/dev/null of=/dev/sdb1
wouldn't fix.
Oh right, Windows.
Sorry, I forgot to say "fixed that for you."
I'm being a little presumptuous, but I suspect that you, like me, have never looked at browser data for Japanese websites. They are much more tech savvy than we, and I would not be surprised to find that much like the population of Slashdot (myself included) they have a disproportionate share of that made up 1% of internet users that use multiple browsers you quoted.
The genus Vicuna is divided into four species, but all can freely reproduce.
So classification can be rather haphazard, and especially so when we don't have a live specimen to study. Hence the cloning suggestion.
That's running over Wine, guaranteed to spectacularly fail any sort of speed tests. If I want a speedy browser under Linux, I'll stick with Epiphany. But for most things, I'll just use Firefox.
The thing is, we're so damn close on the moons of Jupiter. All we need to do is break the fucking ice and take a look. Odds are, if there's life, there's something obvious, not just unicellular (though we can easily check for that.)
I'm sure that Jupiter has a lot to teach us, but the moons are just about the only place we've found that actually have a reasonable chance of supporting extra-terrestrial life. I sort of feel like clearing that up is the next step, then we can go back to poking things and seeing what turns up. We probed the moons, we have a sense that there may be something of interest there, we should act on that suspicion before moving on to something else.
Or both.
no... it's pretty clearly based on Hardy.
When I last tried IE8, it seemed somewhere in between FF1.5 and 2.0, with about half the speed. So really, I'm quite content to wait if they're planning on making IE8 pass FF2.0 by a bit.
I use grep/emacs/tab completion / good names for just about all of my finding needs.
And yet, even I use a database integrated with my media player to find and organize my music.
Use the tool that fits the task. Finding files -> grep. Finding music -> Amarok. (Winamp ain't bad if your platform doesn't support KDE.)
You assume that Google is run by money-grubbing whores interested in a monopoly. It's not. They really do produce products so good that no one can compete with them. And the people who work there work there for that reason. They don't work there for money (there's certainly plenty of it) and I see no reason to believe they work there for their shareholders (they have no reason to, they're doing just fine as it is.) If that changes, sure, that might be a problem. But I think that many of the people at Google would pack up and leave if it began defending its monopoly the way MS has. And they'd take their source with them, and we'd all be the better for it.
I see no evidence of anti-competitive behavior on Google's part, and until we see anything, the DoJ wouldn't have a case.
On the other hand, they control most of my sources of evidence.
Fuck.
My roommate when I was working in DC over the summer worked at the DoJ, and they weren't allowed any sort of media. Seems to me the DoD was kind of asleep at the wheel.
Unless Adobe makes a lot of headway with their ARM port, the lack of Flash on cellphones may give you serious reason to consider Gnash, since they're the only ones who've put much thought into multi-architecture compatibility.
I suppose that much would be any in the case of Silverlight. Seems to me it's purely x86.(and 64bit)