Yes. I'm working on a solution for that. At least have been for years. You know how this goes for hobby projects.
The solution is called SoFiNet (from the Dutch "social-fiscal number", popularized as "sofinummer"; US citizens may just like refer to it as SSNet). The idea is that you resolve people's PC's not by their Internet address, not by their domain names, but by the Social Security Number of their users. This is also ideal for applications like Instant Messaging, personal email, etc. Would also help you to track down lost friends.
The project is semi-serious, but I'm trying to make this work at a level that most present-day Internet programs can easily adopt to it, so for instance, by means of an alternative DNS system. BTW, the same thing can also be abused for any other personal ID systems, like Slashdot UIDs. I don't think this should be illegal as long as we don't force anyone to log in on SoFiNet.
"The amount of odd data takes about half of the Internet's bandwith, consisting primarily of ones", a representative said. "We're currently trying to find a way to filter this odd data, so that we only have the zeroes left. The capacity effect for the Internet should be huge."
A representative from the WinZip company could confirm that data containing only zeroes can also be compressed at much better ratio's than data containing both ones and zeroes.
Your "untold number of eyes" is nearly indistinguishable from "0" unless your open source project is widely used. Sure, this may hold for the Linux kernel, or Apache, or even Mozilla, but what about all of the open source projects on SourceForge?
As soon as it gets used, it gets seen, which is not true for even popular closed source material.
I once programmed against libgnet 0.2. This library was (at least back then) so obscure that only two websites from google had the (fairly lacking) HTMLized API docs -- one of them being obsoleted by the other, and this was all the net presence there was. (Looking back I wonder how I got track of gnet in the first place -- probably throught Debian.)
I noted my program stopped working at some kind of magic number. I found the number was not in my code, so I finally got to downloading the source for libgnet, and I found a 1-off problem with the used algorithm. I could describle exactly to the author what he had to change.
Not that the author (probably, as many others, unable to maintain his little project even in its 0.2 stage) ever bothered to reply on my bug report, although this could also be because of the tone I wrote it in (I was fairly impressed by the layout of his source, which was amazingly precicely spaced, so I wrote kind of in a "I can't imagine little me finding a bug in code made by You, oh Master of Code"-style. That was before I learnt about what GNU indent by default does to code:-)
Re:Comment Misspelled
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 3, Funny
It goes on by saying:
/* Uh, actually Linus it is I who cannot spell. Too much murky
* Sparc assembly will do this to ya.
*/ C_LABEL(cputypvar):.asciz "compatability"/* Tested on SS-5, SS-10. Probably someone at Sun applied a spell-checker. */.align 4 C_LABEL(cputypvar_sun4m):.asciz "compatible"
So noooh, LINUS put it there, not SCO!
Besides that, I have no IDEA what the code is talking about:-)
(Although I must say it only gets better later on:
If you see a bazaar as a place where everyone sells his own small product, and a cathedral as a result of often loosely planned and re-planned work of many ages and many men, with many different skills involved......then, actually, who is the Cathedral, and who is the Bazaar?
Well, I've used Atheos once long ago and it was themeable, with some default themes derived from Amiga (that's Amiga, not NextStep) and BeOS. I did find the themes to be a little bit too "fat" (compared to Amiga itself, and I never liked the BeOS look -- at least not in Atheos or Linux). So no, I guess they don't try (= intend) to look like NextStep.
That the looks aren't all that much is another thing, though. But to just discuss taste -- I guess the users must decide here.
The "Sheesh" is unnecessary, because the guy has a reasonable point here.
If an OS behaves the same as e.g. Linux but is different internally, then yes, it IS "the same" as Linux. Look & feel is a big part of this. The internal differences only start to be interesting if you're a developer, or sometimes (when the API is the same) even only if you are into a specialized markted, like embedded or real-time software.
For some of us, an ideal OS is one with an ideal user interaction. And sometimes when I have my Interaction Design hat on, this also counts for me.
Well sorry to interrupt, but what's wrong with a nine to five attitude? Seems to me that your only problem is that you don't have it too;-)
I know, my point-of-view is a little bit too much over at the other edge, but I just can't imagine getting into a state where my employer says "you have to work the rest of your life for me and sell your soul for the company" -- and all *I* do as a reaction is Asking Slashdot "what should I do"?
What he should do? Kick the man's ass, of course! I've heard of "slave to the minimum wage", but this beats everything!
If they mention the trademark, they have a bigger problem, not a smaller. After all, they recognize UNIX as a trademark. Only when going to court, they change their position because the trademark works against them.
But the fact remains, that UNIX has well been kept a trademark by the Open Group, usable only to those implementations that conform to their standards (NOT in any way limiting the use of the name by e.g. Linux or BSD -- as long as it conforms to their standards!).
So if MacOS X is too weird to be UNIX (in some odd reverse way of things:-), Apple should not get a certification and they'd infringe trademarks they very well recognized themselves...OR MacOS X should make it into standard UNIX. It's either of both, and their option.
The community has always well done its best to avoid the UNIX trademark problem, by calling things by their names. (Which is good, because no, GNU is Not Unix not only by name, but also because it essentially differs from it -- for one thing because it's better.) So declaring UNIX to be a generic term would be far less likely than declaring e.g. SPAM (the meat product) or a generic term.
"Hey, let's declare Linux to be the whole OS, even when a BSD kernel is used. It's a generic term, anyway..." Yeah, right.
From Object to Bart Simpson: that's a generalization/ specification, but the notation is more or less a class namespace thingy (either that, or an aggregation -- like System.out.println()).
This stuff is more confusing than the average teacher's example:-)
I have made a system which automatically stores data objects to a MySQL database. Each class gets its own table, and each subclass also gets its own (where it stores its particular data). Links between objects are presented as references to object ID's, and you can load and save any object by this ID.
There are one or two hackish and/ or purely practical things about this solution, but you can write fast and elegant PHP code with it (which is why it was made -- I too found PHP lacking on this). The database is MySQL but a port to any other database would be possible without having to alter your scripts -- they remain database independent.
The biggest problem with this code is its "internal" state, e.g. not being known by the world, not really being compared to other systems, and lacking support and H-Q documentation.
But if you're interested, version 1.0 is available from here: http://pflipp.nl.eu.org/software/sssi/
(The product is called "Achterwerk", which means "rear end". Which is why we have our (trademarked:-) slogan "Now you know where to stick your data":-)
I, as many others, repeat my argument: if these things were pressure sensitive, they would have been a hell of a drawing tool, but as they're not, they're just some sort of computers which are in some cases even more limited than normal ones.
This comes close to my theory that if the Universe is some kind of simulated environment or creative thought, that came to life only because it was simulated or thought up, its creator cannot help the bad things from happening. (Whether or not God is capable of this has always been a discussion in the Catholic Church AFAIK.)
The "proof": imagine God wanting to create a world where All Is Good. To do so, he has to come up with a concept. Now the only way to see what will happen when the concept is run, is to simulate such a run or think it out completely in your mind. But if any such thing already causes the world to exist, God can't help himself from creating worlds he doesn't like, just by thinking them up and evaluating them.
Now the only thing God can do to solve this, is to quit thinking (or quit the simulation) as soon as a world gets bad. But if we imagine a God as someone with an infinite imagination, (as some do), God just may not be able to help himself from imagining the world in full.
Of course the sheer existence of such a creative person which itself is subject to such constraints, leads to a recursion problem of its own. Who thought up the constraints put onto Him? Imagine a computer thinking up a God thinking up worlds. Or imagine that anything anyone (or any computer) thinks up comes to life. (I'd say some future Sims version will have Sims that only play "The Sims" all day anyway:-)
(If this makes you think of me as religious, you should look at my other theory. It's called the Blue Elephant Theory, and involves someone who thinks that God is a pink elephant, and then goes to heaven to find out he's actually a blue hippo who isn't all that glad that the person in question didn't believe in him, but instead in some silly pink elephant. This story illustrates that making any image of who God is and what he wants from you is very hard from down here. Oh and if you think the example is silly, the Hindus actually have a blue elephant as a god:-)
This is EXACTLY the reason why I have a Racoon mp3 collection instead of the CD's; I won't buy any CD's that are copy protected (and "Here we go, Stereo" even has it advertised on its cover -- I first thought it was a joke, given the name of the record), even though friends have reported having no problem copying the thing.
It's a real shame, especially since Racoon doesn't make the numbers off that particular record (IIRC) that Sony was expecting them to do, but with or without Sony, I wouldn't really mind sponsoring the better local bands.
IPv4, a.k.a. "the Internet" has seen an unexpected adoption in terms of world domination. You know, the reason that you're able to make this comment. If you thought that part of the story already was about IPv6, well, read it:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't SCO employees be better advised to write their resumees, instead of protesting.
And what should they write, then?
"I worked at SCO"?
Did that make sense?
In this context, yes.
Name: dns.com
Address: 127.0.0.1
Hey, that's remarkable. I didn't know that dns.com points towards my (or your) own computer, but in effect, yes, it does!
Yes. I'm working on a solution for that. At least have been for years. You know how this goes for hobby projects.
The solution is called SoFiNet (from the Dutch "social-fiscal number", popularized as "sofinummer"; US citizens may just like refer to it as SSNet). The idea is that you resolve people's PC's not by their Internet address, not by their domain names, but by the Social Security Number of their users. This is also ideal for applications like Instant Messaging, personal email, etc. Would also help you to track down lost friends.
The project is semi-serious, but I'm trying to make this work at a level that most present-day Internet programs can easily adopt to it, so for instance, by means of an alternative DNS system. BTW, the same thing can also be abused for any other personal ID systems, like Slashdot UIDs. I don't think this should be illegal as long as we don't force anyone to log in on SoFiNet.
Ohw c'mon, you trust your government, don't you?
"The amount of odd data takes about half of the Internet's bandwith, consisting primarily of ones", a representative said. "We're currently trying to find a way to filter this odd data, so that we only have the zeroes left. The capacity effect for the Internet should be huge."
A representative from the WinZip company could confirm that data containing only zeroes can also be compressed at much better ratio's than data containing both ones and zeroes.
Your "untold number of eyes" is nearly indistinguishable from "0" unless your open source project is widely used. Sure, this may hold for the Linux kernel, or Apache, or even Mozilla, but what about all of the open source projects on SourceForge?
:-)
As soon as it gets used, it gets seen, which is not true for even popular closed source material.
I once programmed against libgnet 0.2. This library was (at least back then) so obscure that only two websites from google had the (fairly lacking) HTMLized API docs -- one of them being obsoleted by the other, and this was all the net presence there was. (Looking back I wonder how I got track of gnet in the first place -- probably throught Debian.)
I noted my program stopped working at some kind of magic number. I found the number was not in my code, so I finally got to downloading the source for libgnet, and I found a 1-off problem with the used algorithm. I could describle exactly to the author what he had to change.
Not that the author (probably, as many others, unable to maintain his little project even in its 0.2 stage) ever bothered to reply on my bug report, although this could also be because of the tone I wrote it in (I was fairly impressed by the layout of his source, which was amazingly precicely spaced, so I wrote kind of in a "I can't imagine little me finding a bug in code made by You, oh Master of Code"-style. That was before I learnt about what GNU indent by default does to code
So noooh, LINUS put it there, not SCO!
Besides that, I have no IDEA what the code is talking about
(Although I must say it only gets better later on:
why not here.
...then, actually, who is the Cathedral, and who is the Bazaar?
If you see a bazaar as a place where everyone sells his own small product, and a cathedral as a result of often loosely planned and re-planned work of many ages and many men, with many different skills involved...
Yeah? And what if you can have even cheaper software-based music that work on all PC's? :-)
Doesn't anyone think that the Caldera logo should better be used to represent Disneyland?
OK, I've checked, you just made this up.
;-)
The reason I checked was that, for what I know, Linus' humor is not too different to this. I gave you 50-50 for the joke
Well, I've used Atheos once long ago and it was themeable, with some default themes derived from Amiga (that's Amiga, not NextStep) and BeOS. I did find the themes to be a little bit too "fat" (compared to Amiga itself, and I never liked the BeOS look -- at least not in Atheos or Linux). So no, I guess they don't try (= intend) to look like NextStep.
That the looks aren't all that much is another thing, though. But to just discuss taste -- I guess the users must decide here.
The "Sheesh" is unnecessary, because the guy has a reasonable point here.
If an OS behaves the same as e.g. Linux but is different internally, then yes, it IS "the same" as Linux. Look & feel is a big part of this. The internal differences only start to be interesting if you're a developer, or sometimes (when the API is the same) even only if you are into a specialized markted, like embedded or real-time software.
For some of us, an ideal OS is one with an ideal user interaction. And sometimes when I have my Interaction Design hat on, this also counts for me.
getting away with this comment and score +2 insightful... you should run for president!
NextStep has nothing to do with Motif has nothing to do with this. Off topic.
Well sorry to interrupt, but what's wrong with a nine to five attitude? Seems to me that your only problem is that you don't have it too ;-)
I know, my point-of-view is a little bit too much over at the other edge, but I just can't imagine getting into a state where my employer says "you have to work the rest of your life for me and sell your soul for the company" -- and all *I* do as a reaction is Asking Slashdot "what should I do"?
What he should do? Kick the man's ass, of course! I've heard of "slave to the minimum wage", but this beats everything!
If they mention the trademark, they have a bigger problem, not a smaller. After all, they recognize UNIX as a trademark. Only when going to court, they change their position because the trademark works against them.
:-), Apple should not get a certification and they'd infringe trademarks they very well recognized themselves ...OR MacOS X should make it into standard UNIX. It's either of both, and their option.
But the fact remains, that UNIX has well been kept a trademark by the Open Group, usable only to those implementations that conform to their standards (NOT in any way limiting the use of the name by e.g. Linux or BSD -- as long as it conforms to their standards!).
So if MacOS X is too weird to be UNIX (in some odd reverse way of things
The community has always well done its best to avoid the UNIX trademark problem, by calling things by their names. (Which is good, because no, GNU is Not Unix not only by name, but also because it essentially differs from it -- for one thing because it's better.) So declaring UNIX to be a generic term would be far less likely than declaring e.g. SPAM (the meat product) or a generic term.
"Hey, let's declare Linux to be the whole OS, even when a BSD kernel is used. It's a generic term, anyway..." Yeah, right.
Hmm... I find this a bad example anyway?
:-)
From Object to Bart Simpson: that's a generalization/ specification, but the notation is more or less a class namespace thingy (either that, or an aggregation -- like System.out.println()).
This stuff is more confusing than the average teacher's example
I have made a system which automatically stores data objects to a MySQL database. Each class gets its own table, and each subclass also gets its own (where it stores its particular data). Links between objects are presented as references to object ID's, and you can load and save any object by this ID.
:-) slogan "Now you know where to stick your data" :-)
There are one or two hackish and/ or purely practical things about this solution, but you can write fast and elegant PHP code with it (which is why it was made -- I too found PHP lacking on this). The database is MySQL but a port to any other database would be possible without having to alter your scripts -- they remain database independent.
The biggest problem with this code is its "internal" state, e.g. not being known by the world, not really being compared to other systems, and lacking support and H-Q documentation.
But if you're interested, version 1.0 is available from here: http://pflipp.nl.eu.org/software/sssi/
(The product is called "Achterwerk", which means "rear end". Which is why we have our (trademarked
So now I finally get to talk with people I meet, or that are just a door away to visit? Seems useful to me :-)
I, as many others, repeat my argument: if these things were pressure sensitive, they would have been a hell of a drawing tool, but as they're not, they're just some sort of computers which are in some cases even more limited than normal ones.
Then what about IE for the Mac??
yeah right, the educated people who read Slashdot...
This comes close to my theory that if the Universe is some kind of simulated environment or creative thought, that came to life only because it was simulated or thought up, its creator cannot help the bad things from happening. (Whether or not God is capable of this has always been a discussion in the Catholic Church AFAIK.)
:-)
:-)
The "proof": imagine God wanting to create a world where All Is Good. To do so, he has to come up with a concept. Now the only way to see what will happen when the concept is run, is to simulate such a run or think it out completely in your mind. But if any such thing already causes the world to exist, God can't help himself from creating worlds he doesn't like, just by thinking them up and evaluating them.
Now the only thing God can do to solve this, is to quit thinking (or quit the simulation) as soon as a world gets bad. But if we imagine a God as someone with an infinite imagination, (as some do), God just may not be able to help himself from imagining the world in full.
Of course the sheer existence of such a creative person which itself is subject to such constraints, leads to a recursion problem of its own. Who thought up the constraints put onto Him? Imagine a computer thinking up a God thinking up worlds. Or imagine that anything anyone (or any computer) thinks up comes to life. (I'd say some future Sims version will have Sims that only play "The Sims" all day anyway
(If this makes you think of me as religious, you should look at my other theory. It's called the Blue Elephant Theory, and involves someone who thinks that God is a pink elephant, and then goes to heaven to find out he's actually a blue hippo who isn't all that glad that the person in question didn't believe in him, but instead in some silly pink elephant. This story illustrates that making any image of who God is and what he wants from you is very hard from down here. Oh and if you think the example is silly, the Hindus actually have a blue elephant as a god
This is EXACTLY the reason why I have a Racoon mp3 collection instead of the CD's; I won't buy any CD's that are copy protected (and "Here we go, Stereo" even has it advertised on its cover -- I first thought it was a joke, given the name of the record), even though friends have reported having no problem copying the thing.
:-)
It's a real shame, especially since Racoon doesn't make the numbers off that particular record (IIRC) that Sony was expecting them to do, but with or without Sony, I wouldn't really mind sponsoring the better local bands.
That is, if they had normal albums for sale
Uhm, hello?
:-)
IPv4, a.k.a. "the Internet" has seen an unexpected adoption in terms of world domination. You know, the reason that you're able to make this comment. If you thought that part of the story already was about IPv6, well, read it