There is one, and only one, advantage of using XML: You can reuse an existing parser, instead of writing your own. How to write a parser is probably the most well-understood problem in computer science, so this is not a big saving in time. However, there tend nonetheless to be slight differences between ad-hoc parsers independently written for the same language, so for interoperability reasons specifying XML might be a good idea.
Gmail gives you three options when mail is downloaded with pop: keep in inbox, archive, or delete. Go to settings -> forwarding and pop to test for yourself.
It is unauthorized, which in some peoples opinion makes it Wrong. Other people have no problem with that. And to a sizable fraction of the people, it is Wrong only if there is an option of authorized copying.
Claiming that your Wrong should be the viewpoint of everybody isn't going to help. On the other hand, providing an authorized option is going to change something, as it will make the last group switch to that option. That is why the article, unlike your opinion, is interesting, it shows a way to change status quo.
[ I personally never do unauthorized copies, not because I think those are Wrong, but because I want to argue against current copyright laws without being accused of trying to justify my own behavior. ]
I already have to pay our *local* 20% sales tax for anything I import from the US (plus a substantial "service fee" for having them opening my mail without my permission), so you really think I would care about your puny state taxes?
Venezuela is going to be invaded by the USA, the same month USA withdraw their last troops from Iraq to draw attention from the humiliating defeat. The puppet government they put in will have as their primary mandate to ensure oil supply to the US.
That invasion will actually be the start of a new isolationist period of the US history, where the US concentrate on problems "at home", which will include its "back yard" in South America.
US will no longer face Islamic terrorism, as soon as US withdraw from the scene, the corrupt Arab leaders will (successfully) point to Iran as the new enemy, with the support of the local religious leaders, who sees Shia-Islam as a threat to their own power base.
There is a lot of countries who would love to spend more than the USA, except they don't posses an economy that would allow it.
US of course have economic interest all over the world, but are actually one of the countries least dependent on foreign trade. USA *could* go isolationist, and it is a surprise that they haven't done so, not that Communism is no longer a credible threat. I actually expect them to do so soon, within a decade. Which means that EU will have to create their own defense, EU is far more vulnerable than USA both economically and geographically. Taiwan would be lost. And life would become exciting for Japan and Asean.
It would not affect South America, even in its most isolationist times, USA have never been to reclusive to stage a few invasions or coups in what it considers its own back yard.
The first specify that I want Danish typesetting conventions, and the seconds specify what character set is used in the text. Doesn't seem complicated to me, especially since it is the same in every document (and I use the "latin1" one in my English documents as well).
> Hmm... both of these standards suck. I know what, we need another choice! > > Somehow I don't think that's going to fix the problem.
Depends on what you define the problem as. That there is too many "standards", or that all of them sucks. If the later, defining a new standard that does not suck solves the problem.
You are a moron. I never said meetings were useless, quite the opposite, I applauded them for increasing my productivity. Your total lack of reading capability combined with your failure to grasp even the simplest logic train of logic makes you a liability to any organization where you participate. In fact, time wasters like you are the main the reason meetings have a bad reputation.
The FSF is not a research organization, so in principle they don't innovate anything.
GCC, GDB and BISON were all based on academic research papers by other people.
Emacs, predating FSF, was pretty innovative for its time, and has been a source of inspiration for other text editors and IDE's for decades. RMS even wrote one of his few academic papers on it.
The copyleft is a major innovation, RMS used copyleft licences before the GPL, the GPL was also innovative as the first generic copyleft license. The copyleft fill an important niche between the older "just don't sue us!" licenses (such as BSDL, but many earlier such licenses existed) and the "not for commercial use" license (popular at the time). The copyleft creates a level playing fields that allows competing companies to cooperate, something neither of the two other (older) classes manage.
> News of my misconception is greatly exaggerated.
No it is not.
> I was using the definition used by the person who is perhaps the most important proponent > of Open Source, Linus Torvalds. I believe the definition he uses is aptly described by the > Linux Information Project as:
Never heard of LINFO before, the site seems very amateurish. Did you write it?
You don't argue for why you believe Linus shares your misconceptions, I haven't seen anything from him that indicates that.
[ More deeply confused bladder deleted ]
There are philosophical differences between the FSF and OSI, and occasionally they have disagreed about specific licenses, but since you don't seem to agree on the OSI definition (despite them inventing the term) and instead rely on extrapolating from some page-rank four page, it doesn't really matter.
> I can only conclude that if you are not an anti-Free Software shill you are the one who > is badly misinformed
Given your basic misconceptions, it doesn't really matter what you conclude.
But it would nice if you stopped spreading them.
-- Per Abrahamsen FSF associate member since 2003, registered Linux user #367.
The problem isn't as much the feature set, as the fact that MS Office files are the de-facto standard for document exchange. Even if you don't need a specific feature yourself, are you sure some customer or partner won't use something beyond the capability of Google's import filters?
I am actively advocating Google Apps for Your Domain in my company as a replacement for our aging Groupwise mail and calendar system, rather than going for a far more expensive Exchange based solution.
However, I wouldn't dream of (or rather I would dream of it, but then daytime reality kicks in) suggesting Google Apps as a replacement for MS Office. Not at this point.
I could easily imagine that the numbers in the article refers to how many Google Apps for Your Domain clients they have (most of which are free), but almost all of those will be as a Exchange replcement, not Office.
1981: I have somehow managed to totally ignore DB stuff, so I don't recognize the name even knowing what he did. But I do know that rel. db are important enough for the award.
1980: Never bothered with why the awards were given, just whether I know the name.
1968: Yes, his invention being named after him and all.
Well, him being dead well before the GH award was invented could explain it, but none the less. Having an award named after you kind of make up for not winning an award.
I'll take it as a challenge, and see how many names I recognize without looking them up. 2005 Naur, Peter: The N of BNF, even if he prefer the N to stand for "Normal". He is most known here for mandating the use of Danish translations of computer terms when he worked at DIKU.
2004 Cerf, Vinton G. 2004 Kahn, Robert E: Someone in Al Gore's staff.
2003 Kay, Alan: Always talking about nothing at all,
2002 Adleman, Leonard M. 2002 Rivest, Ronald L. 2002 Shamir, Adi: Adleman should be last, I would not recognize the names individually.
2001 Dahl, Ole-Johan 2001 Nygaard, Kristen: I'll simulate knowledge of then one, if you get the message.
2000 Yao, Andrew Chi-Chih 1999 Brooks, Frederick P. 1998 Gray, James: Dunno
1997 Engelbart, Douglas: Just some wimp.
1996 Pnueli, Amir 1995 Blum, Manuel 1994 Feigenbaum, Edward 1994 Reddy, Raj 1993 Hartmanis, Juris 1993 Stearns, Richard E. 1992 Lampson, Butler W.: Dunno
1991 Milner, Robin: Something with semantics...
1990 Corbato, Fernando J. 1989 Kahan, William (Velvel) 1988 Sutherland, Ivan 1987 Cocke, John 1986 Hopcroft, John 1986 Tarjan, Robert 1985 Karp, Richard M.: Dunno.
1984 Wirth, Niklaus: You can call him by value; or you can call him by name.
1983 Ritchie, Dennis M. 1983 Thompson, Ken: Doug McIllroy should have been there.
1982 Cook, Stephen A. 1981 Codd, Edgar F.: Dunno.
1980 Hoare, C. Antony R. : More formalisms.
1979 Iverson, Kenneth E. 1978 Floyd, Robert W : Dunno
1977 Backus, John: SOME WORK ON AUTOMATED FORMULA TRANSLATION.
1976 Rabin, Michael O. 1976 Scott, Dana S. 1975 Newell, Allen 1975 Simon, Herbert A.: Dunno
1974 Knuth, Donald E. : Worst case of "to write the perfect thesis, you must find the perfect pen" EVER.
1973 Bachman, Charles W.: Dunno.
1972 Dijkstra, E. W.: How to GOTO along the shortest path. He don't like Wirthless, so I like him.
1969 Minsky, Marvin: Not half as smart as his computer.
1968 Hamming, Richard 1967 Wilkes, Maurice V 1966 Perlis, A. J.: Dunno.
--
Summary: 22 dunno's and 15 knowns (by year), so I guess you are right that I shouldn't expect to recognize the name. They do all have Wikipedia pages, but of course these might be written *because* they received the award. From the descriptions there, a handful of the "dunno" invented something I recognize (which is almost like recognizing them), but the rest just "made contributions to" which is more difficult to judge.
And I'm not alone on that, her Wikipedia entry is only two weeks old.
She narrowly beat out a nun with the same name who lived 200 years ago, for first place in a Google search (they get an unimpressive 30k hits combined).
It is quite possible that she is a unacknowledged genius, but it is no surprise that the first reaction isn't "finally!" from most people.
Presumably, we will learn a lot more about her now. Maybe some FORTRAN parallelization experts will outline her contributions for us.
Slashdot Mirror
The attitude to free software does not correlate well to the left-right axes of politics, but rather to the libertarian-authoritarian axes.
RMS and ESR are on opposite ends of the left-right axes, but they are both extreme libertarians on the libertarian-authoritarian axes.
> Who has looked into that code or used it for anything else?
Lot's of people have looked into and used GCC's C++ and Objective-C front ends...
There is one, and only one, advantage of using XML: You can reuse an existing parser, instead of writing your own. How to write a parser is probably the most well-understood problem in computer science, so this is not a big saving in time. However, there tend nonetheless to be slight differences between ad-hoc parsers independently written for the same language, so for interoperability reasons specifying XML might be a good idea.
Gmail gives you three options when mail is downloaded with pop: keep in inbox, archive, or delete. Go to settings -> forwarding and pop to test for yourself.
It is unauthorized, which in some peoples opinion makes it Wrong. Other people have no problem with that. And to a sizable fraction of the people, it is Wrong only if there is an option of authorized copying.
Claiming that your Wrong should be the viewpoint of everybody isn't going to help. On the other hand, providing an authorized option is going to change something, as it will make the last group switch to that option. That is why the article, unlike your opinion, is interesting, it shows a way to change status quo.
[ I personally never do unauthorized copies, not because I think those are Wrong, but because I want to argue against current copyright laws without being accused of trying to justify my own behavior. ]
I already have to pay our *local* 20% sales tax for anything I import from the US (plus a substantial "service fee" for having them opening my mail without my permission), so you really think I would care about your puny state taxes?
Venezuela is going to be invaded by the USA, the same month USA withdraw their last troops from Iraq to draw attention from the humiliating defeat. The puppet government they put in will have as their primary mandate to ensure oil supply to the US.
That invasion will actually be the start of a new isolationist period of the US history, where the US concentrate on problems "at home", which will include its "back yard" in South America.
US will no longer face Islamic terrorism, as soon as US withdraw from the scene, the corrupt Arab leaders will (successfully) point to Iran as the new enemy, with the support of the local religious leaders, who sees Shia-Islam as a threat to their own power base.
There is a lot of countries who would love to spend more than the USA, except they don't posses an economy that would allow it.
US of course have economic interest all over the world, but are actually one of the countries least dependent on foreign trade. USA *could* go isolationist, and it is a surprise that they haven't done so, not that Communism is no longer a credible threat. I actually expect them to do so soon, within a decade. Which means that EU will have to create their own defense, EU is far more vulnerable than USA both economically and geographically. Taiwan would be lost. And life would become exciting for Japan and Asean.
It would not affect South America, even in its most isolationist times, USA have never been to reclusive to stage a few invasions or coups in what it considers its own back yard.
Uh, I have two additional lines in the pre-amble: The first specify that I want Danish typesetting conventions, and the seconds specify what character set is used in the text. Doesn't seem complicated to me, especially since it is the same in every document (and I use the "latin1" one in my English documents as well).
One more addition compared to US users: The rest of the world use A4 paper.
> Hmm... both of these standards suck. I know what, we need another choice!
>
> Somehow I don't think that's going to fix the problem.
Depends on what you define the problem as. That there is too many "standards", or that all of them sucks. If the later, defining a new standard that does not suck solves the problem.
Works for me.
> People are afraid to offend. People try to impress. People are afraid of sounding stupid.
The participants needs to trust and respect each other first.
You are a moron. I never said meetings were useless, quite the opposite, I applauded them for increasing my productivity. Your total lack of reading capability combined with your failure to grasp even the simplest logic train of logic makes you a liability to any organization where you participate. In fact, time wasters like you are the main the reason meetings have a bad reputation.
Unless all the SME's are one man operations.
The last thing you would want is to increase the creativity of Congress...
I write some of my best code during long, dull meetings.
I even seem very active to the other participants, constantly taking notes on my laptop (as far as they know).
The FSF is not a research organization, so in principle they don't innovate anything.
GCC, GDB and BISON were all based on academic research papers by other people.
Emacs, predating FSF, was pretty innovative for its time, and has been a source of inspiration for other text editors and IDE's for decades. RMS even wrote one of his few academic papers on it.
The copyleft is a major innovation, RMS used copyleft licences before the GPL, the GPL was also innovative as the first generic copyleft license. The copyleft fill an important niche between the older "just don't sue us!" licenses (such as BSDL, but many earlier such licenses existed) and the "not for commercial use" license (popular at the time). The copyleft creates a level playing fields that allows competing companies to cooperate, something neither of the two other (older) classes manage.
> News of my misconception is greatly exaggerated.
No it is not.
> I was using the definition used by the person who is perhaps the most important proponent
> of Open Source, Linus Torvalds. I believe the definition he uses is aptly described by the
> Linux Information Project as:
Never heard of LINFO before, the site seems very amateurish. Did you write it?
You don't argue for why you believe Linus shares your misconceptions, I haven't seen anything from him that indicates that.
[ More deeply confused bladder deleted ]
There are philosophical differences between the FSF and OSI, and occasionally they have disagreed about specific licenses, but since you don't seem to agree on the OSI definition (despite them inventing the term) and instead rely on extrapolating from some page-rank four page, it doesn't really matter.
> I can only conclude that if you are not an anti-Free Software shill you are the one who
> is badly misinformed
Given your basic misconceptions, it doesn't really matter what you conclude.
But it would nice if you stopped spreading them.
--
Per Abrahamsen
FSF associate member since 2003, registered Linux user #367.
The problem isn't as much the feature set, as the fact that MS Office files are the de-facto standard for document exchange. Even if you don't need a specific feature yourself, are you sure some customer or partner won't use something beyond the capability of Google's import filters?
I am actively advocating Google Apps for Your Domain in my company as a replacement for our aging Groupwise mail and calendar system, rather than going for a far more expensive Exchange based solution.
However, I wouldn't dream of (or rather I would dream of it, but then daytime reality kicks in) suggesting Google Apps as a replacement for MS Office. Not at this point.
I could easily imagine that the numbers in the article refers to how many Google Apps for Your Domain clients they have (most of which are free), but almost all of those will be as a Exchange replcement, not Office.
1999: That was embarassing
1981: I have somehow managed to totally ignore DB stuff, so I don't recognize the name even knowing what he did. But I do know that rel. db are important enough for the award.
1980: Never bothered with why the awards were given, just whether I know the name.
1968: Yes, his invention being named after him and all.
Alan Turing never won the Grace Murray Hopper Award either, so that seems fair.
Well, him being dead well before the GH award was invented could explain it, but none the less. Having an award named after you kind of make up for not winning an award.
I'll take it as a challenge, and see how many names I recognize without looking them up.
2005 Naur, Peter: The N of BNF, even if he prefer the N to stand for "Normal". He is most known here for mandating the use of Danish translations of computer terms when he worked at DIKU.
2004 Cerf, Vinton G. 2004 Kahn, Robert E: Someone in Al Gore's staff.
2003 Kay, Alan: Always talking about nothing at all,
2002 Adleman, Leonard M. 2002 Rivest, Ronald L. 2002 Shamir, Adi: Adleman should be last, I would not recognize the names individually.
2001 Dahl, Ole-Johan 2001 Nygaard, Kristen: I'll simulate knowledge of then one, if you get the message.
2000 Yao, Andrew Chi-Chih 1999 Brooks, Frederick P. 1998 Gray, James: Dunno
1997 Engelbart, Douglas: Just some wimp.
1996 Pnueli, Amir 1995 Blum, Manuel 1994 Feigenbaum, Edward 1994 Reddy, Raj 1993 Hartmanis, Juris 1993 Stearns, Richard E. 1992 Lampson, Butler W.: Dunno
1991 Milner, Robin: Something with semantics...
1990 Corbato, Fernando J. 1989 Kahan, William (Velvel) 1988 Sutherland, Ivan 1987 Cocke, John 1986 Hopcroft, John 1986 Tarjan, Robert 1985 Karp, Richard M.: Dunno.
1984 Wirth, Niklaus: You can call him by value; or you can call him by name.
1983 Ritchie, Dennis M. 1983 Thompson, Ken: Doug McIllroy should have been there.
1982 Cook, Stephen A. 1981 Codd, Edgar F.: Dunno.
1980 Hoare, C. Antony R. : More formalisms.
1979 Iverson, Kenneth E. 1978 Floyd, Robert W : Dunno
1977 Backus, John: SOME WORK ON AUTOMATED FORMULA TRANSLATION.
1976 Rabin, Michael O. 1976 Scott, Dana S. 1975 Newell, Allen 1975 Simon, Herbert A.: Dunno
1974 Knuth, Donald E. : Worst case of "to write the perfect thesis, you must find the perfect pen" EVER.
1973 Bachman, Charles W.: Dunno.
1972 Dijkstra, E. W.: How to GOTO along the shortest path. He don't like Wirthless, so I like him.
1971 McCarthy, John: (when (version 2.0) 'ready-p)
1970 Wilkinson, J. H.: Dunno.
1969 Minsky, Marvin: Not half as smart as his computer.
1968 Hamming, Richard 1967 Wilkes, Maurice V 1966 Perlis, A. J.: Dunno.
--
Summary: 22 dunno's and 15 knowns (by year), so I guess you are right that I shouldn't expect to recognize the name. They do all have Wikipedia pages, but of course these might be written *because* they received the award. From the descriptions there, a handful of the "dunno" invented something I recognize (which is almost like recognizing them), but the rest just "made contributions to" which is more difficult to judge.
How the fuck can "A = ½B => 2A = B" be informative, insightful or interesting?
I don't understand Americans.
And I'm not alone on that, her Wikipedia entry is only two weeks old.
She narrowly beat out a nun with the same name who lived 200 years ago, for first place in a Google search (they get an unimpressive 30k hits combined).
It is quite possible that she is a unacknowledged genius, but it is no surprise that the first reaction isn't "finally!" from most people.
Presumably, we will learn a lot more about her now. Maybe some FORTRAN parallelization experts will outline her contributions for us.
> Some people like && || !, some like And Or Not
l
Either way can be used in C++.
http://cs.smu.ca/~porter/csc/ref/cpp_keywords.htm