The particle wa (hiragana ha) is a suffix appended to the *subject* of the sentence, which in this case, it can be inferred, is the speaker (if we wanted to be more long-winded
Actually, it marks the topic of the following sentences- not the subject. "GA" is the subject marker- its just not used as often or in ways an English speaker might use such a thing.
Beside that this would be indeed nice, encryption can be done on the transport level. Setup a VPN or tunnel.
You cant have a VPN to every endpoint on the internet. Whats more, its a bit onerous to set one up just for a single call.
A tunnel would be an option, if voip used a single TCP socket rather than being a bunch of realtime UDP packets on various ports. (you dont want to retx them over an openssh tunnel, for example) Also, tunnels have overhead: packets stuffed inside other packets. An extra UDP header could nearly double the size of an RTP packet.
Instead, I think it would make sense to integrate a TLS style handshake into the protocol itself. Web of trust issues and whether or not crypto is mandatory could simply be user preferences.
NAT2NAT (establishing a direct connection between two firewalled nodes) really isn't that hard to do (just get both peers to fire some UDP packets at each-other for a few seconds to fool the NATs)
Even if that worked, which I doubt, would you be willing to accept a phone system where you would only be able to connect when the person you were calling was simultaneously trying to call you?
NAT, the last breath of IPv4, is an ugly kludge which violates the fundamental intent of the internet. Making excuses for it wont change that.
This time will be different though. Now they have computer programs to analyze hits and pump out more just the same.
No, now the LISTENERS have computer programs that they can use to find more esoteric music, that appeals to a narrower audience.
p2p is the antidote to the problem you are describing. (Pop music becoming so lame and artificial)
Besides making then fully redundant, non-centralized distribution channels also take away the major labels ability to print money in the form of artificial bands.
I wonder if a magentic field could be restored, perhaps with a massive array of permanent magnets or something similar. A chemical Ozone could be an artificial supplement to shore it up, since its unlikely that a field of such magnitude as the earths would be easily duplicated. (and a lot of valueable material would be tied up in the form of magnets or coils)
It'd almost be a prerequisite for any terraforming.
As things like that illustrate, the amusing thing about Tolkien purists is that their beloved god Tolkien was more liberal about changes then they are.
The original creator of a story is not always the best one to edit it. I mean, have you never seen anyone create a revised edition of a story that was worse that their original?
I have enough trouble getting my boss to distinguish b/t "open source" and "shareware". Throwing "free software" into the mix is going to hurt corporate adoption, not help civil liberties.
So dont! Thats the whole point of the "Open Source" foundation: to package and sell the Free software concept to busineses is a way they can understand.
I just want to see FSF do the little things that would help give it corporate cred.
Thats not what the FSF is about. If the FSF had a slick corporate logo, catch-phrase filled marketing rhetoric, and all the other trappings of the corporate world- well it would lose all credibility.
The FSF exists to talk about things as they are or could be. People can read about it and draw their own conclusions.
Marketing is anathema to free thought. "Marketing" is the application of psychological techniques to alter someone's percoptions or decision making process. (basically to trick people)
No one should have to "sell" you Free software. You can decide thats what you want though, and when you do, you might just decide that youll accept no substitutes (OSF), and instead prefer the non-candy-coated variety (FSF).
Calling Java "really slow" in comparison to other languages is almost a troll, at this point.
I find that a lot of Java code tends to be slow because of the programming style it forces on you.
Sure, you can work around it if you are an expert programmer, but you shouldnt have to fight the language to get decent performance. (read about the travails of the freenet project)
Programming in C++ youre less likely to get a reeking pile of bloat, but the language is like a knife with no handle: you have to be quite competent to use it safely.
There has never been a valid, peer-reviewed study anywhere that indicates that men process spatial relations better than women.
There you are wrong. There are many explicit references in the comments to this story alone. Its a well known and well documented fact.
In fact, it's a well established fact that women tend to be better marksmen than men with the same level of experience. I could beleive this: Marksmanship, when done on a simple firing range does not require any guessing of the targets location or predicting its motion. Nor does it require picking the target out of a crowd: those things would give an advantage to males. On the firing range, the main advantage is having very steady hands, which a female would have an advantage with.
90% of programming as it's known is tedious gruntwork that requires neither mathematical understanding nor much logic.
My only answer to that is you must be doing it wrong. Having worked on projects from the abstract design level, down to implementing even the most trivial subroutines, I thoroughly enjoy it all. Now, if you had said that documentation was tedious...
It is easy to make mistakes if you dont have an overall vision of what your working on. And there are tons of poor programmers out there. But being able turn an idea into a working machine simply by desribing to to a computer can give an immense feeling of satisfaction.
Seeing how even the most trivial piece fits in with the whole, and has a precise and important role to play, does require a fundamental understanding, and a solid grasp of logic.
Well, there are certainly some interesting bits of math required to become an EE; but I think you overvalue it a bit much. You wouldnt say that someone cant be a good althete without being able to throw a 90mph pitch. (its not the only sport)
Programming is, in my humble opinion, closer to pure mathematics than either calculus or boolean algebra. I know more than a few hardware engineers who admit that software is quite difficult from their point of view: complicated and hard to fathom (moreso than the math they forgot after getting their degree) Plus its a fast changing field so you cant afford to sit on your accreditation.
To be a lead programmer in a large project you have to be able to understand very complicated systems all at once so that you can see it as a whole. Not everyone seems to be able to do this.
I call myself a "Programmer", rather than using the official title "Software Engineer"- because I consider "Programmer" to be more prestigious.
If I need to pick up some math to complete a project, I just go and do it. Knowing how to learn continuously is more important than having done it once upon a time.
It's a colon . There's no way it could be anything but a colon.
Umm I might have asked the same question, perhaps also asking why he would have backslashes in his filename. And why the hell hes using iostreams, when they suck ass and should never be used in decent C++ code....just because youre scarred for life by having intimite knowledge of a poorly designed shell doesnt mean that youre automatically smarter...
Allowing any "alternate open-source" license thats less restrictive to subvert the GPL would be phenominally stupid: because then the GPL would be toothless and meaningless.
Allowing more restrictive ones would be counter to its stated purpose.
How can any instrument the purports to do what the GPL does be anything but the GPL? It cannot. Your argument is inane. Its like saying "the color red is no good because its too red. And some people really want it to be blue...."
1. There is nothing hypocritical about the GPL. It is about freedom, up to and including curtailing "unfreedom". Those who want to take but not give are the only ones who run afoul of that, as intended, and as specified.
2. The GPL would be unnecessary in a world without copyright, since there would be no incentive to close any source. In a world with copyright, it is absolutely necessary, and is the underpinning of the whole 'Open Source' movement whether it knows it or not.
Thats good, because outside of torture and interrogation chambers, there is no such thing.
Now, in a world without copyright whatsoever, there's no way you can prevent others from sharing things that you have shared. But thats not the same thing. You could call it "lack of forced sharing prevention". Doesnt sound nearly as objectionable though.
Then what about the distro that went from zero to 1 user just recently. You could truthfully say it had inifinitly more growth than any other established distro;)
I think the whole thing is a myth, languages may be going away, but as language is dynamic, new dialects or variations appear and will continue to diverge.
Global communication is killing language specialization. Youll notice that those variations is US english are simply relics from before the era of mass broadcasting. Even now, they are fading.
Language diversity is a function of population isolation. Language evolution over time is inversely proportional to population pool sizes.
In an era where we are approaching global pervasive communication, language diversification is going backwards and language evolution is slowing down in favor of language unification and cross-pollination.
New pressures will continue to change language and how we communicate, but the vast diversity of languages you see today wouldnt evolve under modern conditions.
Having used libsigc++, it allows all the flexibility of Qt's string based callback system and is typesafe in addition.
Admittedly, it is all compile-time, but that doesnt mean its not dynamic: you can certainly hook and unhook things at runtime. The MOC isnt going to make C++ into an interpreted language or anything.
The other things about gtkmm that I like are that it doesnt try to duplicate things from the stl (such as QtString), that the code size tends to be small, and the executables tend to be fast.
I agree however, that if you liked Objective-C, that you will probably like Qt better, it makes sense.
But, seriously, it doesnt make sense to talk about unifying them, as they are built around fundamentally different toolkits. ( Qt uses a modified subset of C++, GTK+ uses C as a base but has a nice C++ wrapper)
So they cant really be unified, though they can be made quite compatible.
I'm personally biased towards GNOME, because as a C++ programmer I love the stl, and thus hate Qt and the moc. But that doesnt mean I really think that KDE will die off: Free code is, after all, immortal.
Imagine if every single contributor added a few paragraphs the that license. (over time there will be more and more contributors).
Also, whenever you combine two such licenses, you double the size of it. It is very common to fold together parts of different projects. (Know much about programming?)
Now, is it really hard to imagine things getting out of hand in this case? I dont see whe RMS's explanation should need any qualification at all, being perfectly obvious and all.
Code that is well written may live on indefinitely in various derived forms. Eventually, over time, the license requirement will become so onerous, that the software will have to be rewritten from scratch or abdandoned alltogether. Taking a routine from that code base could straddle with megs megs of credits to display.
The GPL itself has no such clause, so dont bore us with RMS's unrelated, non-license relevant, naming suggestions. They simply have nothing to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
The particle wa (hiragana ha) is a suffix appended to the *subject* of the sentence, which in this case, it can be inferred, is the speaker (if we wanted to be more long-winded
Actually, it marks the topic of the following sentences- not the subject. "GA" is the subject marker- its just not used as often or in ways an English speaker might use such a thing.
Beside that this would be indeed nice, encryption can be done on the transport level.
Setup a VPN or tunnel.
You cant have a VPN to every endpoint on the internet. Whats more, its a bit onerous to set one up just for a single call.
A tunnel would be an option, if voip used a single TCP socket rather than being a bunch of realtime UDP packets on various ports. (you dont want to retx them over an openssh tunnel, for example) Also, tunnels have overhead: packets stuffed inside other packets. An extra UDP header could nearly double the size of an RTP packet.
Instead, I think it would make sense to integrate a TLS style handshake into the protocol itself. Web of trust issues and whether or not crypto is mandatory could simply be user preferences.
NAT2NAT (establishing a direct connection between two firewalled nodes) really isn't that hard to do (just get both peers to fire some UDP packets at each-other for a few seconds to fool the NATs)
Even if that worked, which I doubt, would you be willing to accept a phone system where you would only be able to connect when the person you were calling was simultaneously trying to call you?
NAT, the last breath of IPv4, is an ugly kludge which violates the fundamental intent of the internet. Making excuses for it wont change that.
This time will be different though. Now they have
computer programs to analyze hits and pump out more
just the same.
No, now the LISTENERS have computer programs that they can use to find more esoteric music, that appeals to a narrower audience.
p2p is the antidote to the problem you are describing. (Pop music becoming so lame and artificial)
Besides making then fully redundant, non-centralized distribution channels also take away the major labels ability to print money in the form of artificial bands.
I wonder if a magentic field could be restored, perhaps with a massive array of permanent magnets or something similar. A chemical Ozone could be an artificial supplement to shore it up, since its unlikely that a field of such magnitude as the earths would be easily duplicated. (and a lot of valueable material would be tied up in the form of magnets or coils)
It'd almost be a prerequisite for any terraforming.
As things like that illustrate, the amusing thing about Tolkien purists is that their beloved god Tolkien was more liberal about changes then they are.
The original creator of a story is not always the best one to edit it. I mean, have you never seen anyone create a revised edition of a story that was worse that their original?
(Lucas?)
So dont! Thats the whole point of the "Open Source" foundation: to package and sell the Free software concept to busineses is a way they can understand.
I just want to see FSF do the little things that would help give it corporate cred.
Thats not what the FSF is about.
If the FSF had a slick corporate logo, catch-phrase filled marketing rhetoric, and all the other trappings of the corporate world- well it would lose all credibility.
The FSF exists to talk about things as they are or could be. People can read about it and draw their own conclusions.
Marketing is anathema to free thought. "Marketing" is the application of psychological techniques to alter someone's percoptions or decision making process. (basically to trick people)
No one should have to "sell" you Free software. You can decide thats what you want though, and when you do, you might just decide that youll accept no substitutes (OSF), and instead prefer the non-candy-coated variety (FSF).
languages is almost a troll, at this point.
I find that a lot of Java code tends to be slow because of the programming style it forces on you.
Sure, you can work around it if you are an expert programmer, but you shouldnt have to fight the language to get decent performance. (read about the travails of the freenet project)
Programming in C++ youre less likely to get a reeking pile of bloat, but the language is like a knife with no handle: you have to be quite competent to use it safely.
>My God, man, have you ever tried to move STL
>code between compilers???
You mean there are other compilers besides gcc?
There has never been a valid, peer-reviewed study anywhere that indicates that men process spatial relations better than women.
There you are wrong. There are many explicit references in the comments to this story alone.
Its a well known and well documented fact.
In fact, it's a well established fact that women tend to be better marksmen than men with the same level of experience.
I could beleive this: Marksmanship, when done on a simple firing range does not require any guessing of the targets location or predicting its motion. Nor does it require picking the target out of a crowd: those things would give an advantage to males. On the firing range, the main advantage is having very steady hands, which a female would have an advantage with.
The reason being that fewer girls play, and those the play play less on the average.
It turns out that men a women do have differently structured brains, and do tend to think differently.
In any sort of 3 dimesional game, a male might have an unfair advantage do to his mind being structured to process spatial relations quickly.
Physical strength is not the matter: this same thing would translate into a machine simulation.
It not sexism or anything, because there are many mental tasks that women excel at (more than men) as well. (multitasknig is one)
It would be interesting if someone designed a multiplayer game which required a man/women team for maximum efficiency.
90% of programming as it's known is tedious gruntwork that requires neither mathematical understanding nor much logic.
My only answer to that is you must be doing it wrong. Having worked on projects from the abstract design level, down to implementing even the most trivial subroutines, I thoroughly enjoy it all. Now, if you had said that documentation was tedious...
It is easy to make mistakes if you dont have an overall vision of what your working on. And there are tons of poor programmers out there. But being able turn an idea into a working machine simply by desribing to to a computer can give an immense feeling of satisfaction.
Seeing how even the most trivial piece fits in with the whole, and has a precise and important role to play, does require a fundamental understanding, and a solid grasp of logic.
Well, there are certainly some interesting bits of math required to become an EE; but I think you overvalue it a bit much. You wouldnt say that someone cant be a good althete without being able to throw a 90mph pitch. (its not the only sport)
Programming is, in my humble opinion, closer to pure mathematics than either calculus or boolean algebra. I know more than a few hardware engineers who admit that software is quite difficult from their point of view: complicated and hard to fathom (moreso than the math they forgot after getting their degree) Plus its a fast changing field so you cant afford to sit on your accreditation.
To be a lead programmer in a large project you have to be able to understand very complicated systems all at once so that you can see it as a whole. Not everyone seems to be able to do this.
I call myself a "Programmer", rather than using the official title "Software Engineer"- because I consider "Programmer" to be more prestigious.
If I need to pick up some math to complete a project, I just go and do it. Knowing how to learn continuously is more important than having done it once upon a time.
It's a colon . There's no way it could be anything but a colon.
Umm I might have asked the same question, perhaps also asking why he would have backslashes in his filename. And why the hell hes using iostreams, when they suck ass and should never be used in decent C++ code.
Allowing any "alternate open-source" license thats less restrictive to subvert the GPL would be phenominally stupid: because then the GPL would be toothless and meaningless.
Allowing more restrictive ones would be counter to its stated purpose.
How can any instrument the purports to do what the GPL does be anything but the GPL? It cannot. Your argument is inane. Its like saying "the color red is no good because its too red. And some people really want it to be blue...."
>and I still contend that it's hypocritical.
>The GPL essentially says, "information wants to be
>free" -- but then it says, "... but here's what you
>CAN'T DO with my software."
Yes, here's what you cant do: make it unfree.
thats it and thats all. hello.
I agree with 2 caveats:
1. There is nothing hypocritical about the GPL. It is about freedom, up to and including curtailing "unfreedom". Those who want to take but not give are the only ones who run afoul of that, as intended, and as specified.
2. The GPL would be unnecessary in a world without copyright, since there would be no incentive to close any source. In a world with copyright, it is absolutely necessary, and is the underpinning of the whole 'Open Source' movement whether it knows it or not.
I don't believe in forced sharing,
Thats good, because outside of torture and interrogation chambers, there is no such thing.
Now, in a world without copyright whatsoever, there's no way you can prevent others from sharing things that you have shared. But thats not the same thing. You could call it "lack of forced sharing prevention". Doesnt sound nearly as objectionable though.
Then what about the distro that went from zero to 1 user just recently. You could truthfully say it had inifinitly more growth than any other established distro ;)
I think the whole thing is a myth, languages may be going away, but as language is dynamic, new dialects or variations appear and will continue to diverge.
Global communication is killing language specialization. Youll notice that those variations is US english are simply relics from before the era of mass broadcasting. Even now, they are fading.
Language diversity is a function of population isolation. Language evolution over time is inversely proportional to population pool sizes.
In an era where we are approaching global pervasive communication, language diversification is going backwards and language evolution is slowing down in favor of language unification and cross-pollination.
New pressures will continue to change language and how we communicate, but the vast diversity of languages you see today wouldnt evolve under modern conditions.
Having used libsigc++, it allows all the flexibility of Qt's string based callback system and is typesafe in addition.
Admittedly, it is all compile-time, but that doesnt mean its not dynamic: you can certainly hook and unhook things at runtime. The MOC isnt going to make C++ into an interpreted language or anything.
The other things about gtkmm that I like are that it doesnt try to duplicate things from the stl (such as QtString), that the code size tends to be small, and the executables tend to be fast.
I agree however, that if you liked Objective-C, that you will probably like Qt better, it makes sense.
Here is the unification roadmap:
KDE: ----------X
GNOME: ------------------->
</biased_gnome_user>
But, seriously, it doesnt make sense to talk about unifying them, as they are built around fundamentally different toolkits. ( Qt uses a modified subset of C++, GTK+ uses C as a base but has a nice C++ wrapper)
So they cant really be unified, though they can be made quite compatible.
I'm personally biased towards GNOME, because as a C++ programmer I love the stl, and thus hate Qt and the moc. But that doesnt mean I really think that KDE will die off: Free code is, after all, immortal.
It doesnt follow the most important standard: the GPL.
>Is the reason it gets nowhere near the press
>Mozilla does that Opera is not open source? What
>are your thoughts on this one?
My thoughts are: "You dont get it."
There is a world of difference.
Imagine if every single contributor added a few paragraphs the that license. (over time there will be more and more contributors).
Also, whenever you combine two such licenses, you double the size of it. It is very common to fold together parts of different projects. (Know much about programming?)
Now, is it really hard to imagine things getting out of hand in this case? I dont see whe RMS's explanation should need any qualification at all, being perfectly obvious and all.
Code that is well written may live on indefinitely in various derived forms. Eventually, over time, the license requirement will become so onerous, that the software will have to be rewritten from scratch or abdandoned alltogether. Taking a routine from that code base could straddle with megs megs of credits to display.
The GPL itself has no such clause, so dont bore us with RMS's unrelated, non-license relevant, naming suggestions. They simply have nothing to do with it.