And nobody is to fine anybody, even if, and I want to be completely clear on this, even if they say SCO.
I bet same thing happened to newspapers...
on
You're Watching Less TV
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
...50/60 years ago when TV started to get mainstream and people started watching more TV than reading.
And the same will happen when a new medium appears.
Number of entertainment forms increase while number of hours per week stays the same, therefore average number of hours spent on the old medium per person decrease as number of hours spent on the new medium increase said Dr It'sFuckingObvious in a press release today.
short answers: set! (setq for common lisp) would not be tolerated in a purely functional language like Haskell.
The ! is a convention meaning the function alters one (or more) previously allocated location.
For example the display function side-effects to the screen but doesn't alter anything else so it is not tagged with it.
This is a convention, and a Scheme one at that, not a Common Lisp one, so you could choose not to obey it but it would be considered bad to do so (obeying it makes your code more readable).
Side-effect/mutations are not considered as inherently bad (otherwise the language wouldn't have them and would be purely functional) but if you use them extensively it's like using C without pointers and a weird syntax so you wouldn't do it (except when you learn to think functionally or if you have a good reason to) because you would get all the disadvantages of Lisp (weird syntax) without any compelling advantages over C (functional style, macros...) given that you don't use them.
Long answer: the original answer was way longer and covered more ground but the lameness filter kicked in with too many junk characters and I just couldn't bypass it before getting fed up with it so if you are interested to read it e-mail me at: rousseauj1SPAM@yahoo.com (remove the SPAM of course) to send it to you.
Historical note: The instruction format of the IBM 7090 that hosted the original LISP implementation featured two 15 bit fields called the "address" and "decrement" parts. The term "cdr" was originally "Contents of Decrement part of Register". Similarly, "car" stood for "Contents of Address part of Register".
"Writing a good optimizing compiler for that [Python's semantics] is hard"... "In Python, everything is an object, and thus conceptually everything requires a dynamic dispatch."
Maybe the Python compiler writers should try to see how the different Common Lisp implementations implement CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) given that most CL implementations can be compiled and that the semantic of CLOS are way more complicated than those of Python (google for CLOS, kiczales and the art of the MOP == Meta Object Protocol).
It probably will give them some ideas given that the CL compiler writers are aiming at solving a much harder problem with CLOS.
No, Vi and Emacs are totally different takes on the same thing (modal vs non-modal text editing) whereas Gnome and KDE are similar takes on the same thing.
While they have many common points they diverge both from the interface POV and from an "under the hood" POV but the interface part is much easier to integrate (like Bluecurve) than the under the hood part (integrating QT/GTK, although there is some progress with the event loops, or KParts/Bonobo).
It would would be more akin to merging Emacs and XEmacs.
Of course, now that I have written that somebody will write why I am wrong and cite viper-mode and vimacs... oh well, everybody has got teir opinion I guess.
There is no such thing as an Intellectual Property law.
IP is a political term used to refer transparently to copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets (and spread the meme of them being property rights as opposed to temporary monopolies granted by the people (at least in the US constitution)) so that you have copyright law or patent law but no intellectual property law.
The form of "IP" that you are thinking of is trademark which can be lost if you do not monitor their use by sending C&D letters to people using your trademark for their own product (e.g. if I started selling shoes called "adadas" or "reebok").
The problem with MP3 is that it is patented.
They let people use the patented algorithms for years without raising a stink and once everybody was using it they started asking for license fees.
If MP3 was only a trademark the wide use of the name without anybody objecting to it for years would have diluted the trademark and the could would deem that it is generic (anybody can use it).
No they are not immune (no more than Linux is) but I bet it would be much harder to make one one a Mac than on Windows.
As for you never having had a virus since 1990 (same for me) two questions:
1. How technically knowledgable are you.
2. How many less knowledgeable people do you know whose PC are not managed by you did get a virus in the last 4 years.
I'm afraid that you and me are statistical flukes and that statistically speaking it is more secure to be on Mac or on Linux or any OS beside Windows.
And if Mac OR Linux OR both get enough marketshare to attract virus writer the problem still would not be nearly as bad as today because we would then have a polyculture of OS's that would make the spreading of the virus less efficient (that is unless we start seeing.Net/Java viruses that can spread using different implementations).
Oh, BTW, I just wanted to warn you that your computer is full of viruses, but these are so stealthy that no AV software can detect them yet;)
I just wanted to thank you for sharing your emotional scarring with the rest of Slashdot when some less considerate person would have hoarded it all for themselves.
Like you said he took inspiration from Stallman with the GPL and extended the revolutionary concept of the GPL (which would be the copyleft concept) in some CC licenses (though not all of them) that better apply to non-software material.
This, by definition, is evolutionary over the revolutionary part of the GPL.
If you believe that applying the ideas of the GPL to non-software is revolutionary then you must also believe that applying the ideas of the real world to the Internet is revolutionary and, by extension, patent worthy. Maybe you do believe that but I don't.
This doesn't detract from his accomplishment and from his efforts whic h are both great and maybe CC has other revolutionary parts that I am unaware of but this one is not one of them.
"Believe me, I'd take the stuff home if I could, but then I'd technically be stealing. It has to be officially thrown away first."
So officially throw it away in the trash, take your id off, fish it from the trash as a civilian, put your id back on and move that reclaimed trash to your car.
If SCO's $699 price is relly a one time price and an insurance against just these risks does that mean that they will indemnify me when another company with alleges some of their IP is illegally in Linux and they ask me for $650?
Will they indemnify me for each such companies?
If so the easiest way to get rid of SCO is to have a dozen friends of yours claim exactly what SCO is claiming and offers licenses to use their IP and everybody buy the SCO license confident in the fact that SCO, being a company with such respect to "IP rights" and contracts, will pay the $650 * 12 necessary for these licenses.
If not, then SCO's license is no insurance at all and is totally useless as they cannot guarantee that their isn't any more alleged IP problems in Linux.
Yeah, but they will have to have him deported from Canada for being Unamerican. I think if they do that with every unamerican persons on the planet you will solve the illegal immigration problem in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Fishkill (and eat) is very popular and hip with the Penguins in their Linux server room.
And nobody is to fine anybody, even if, and I want to be completely clear on this, even if they say SCO.
And the same will happen when a new medium appears.
Number of entertainment forms increase while number of hours per week stays the same, therefore average number of hours spent on the old medium per person decrease as number of hours spent on the new medium increase said Dr It'sFuckingObvious in a press release today.
" >If you install with the default
SELinux will be the result"
"Shouldn't that be SeusSELINUX?"
I'm not sure that SuSeLinux would have appreciated.
The question is whether Bush can win the elections if he gets similar follow-up votes on pop-ups that spammers do when peddling their wares.
short answers: set! (setq for common lisp) would not be tolerated in a purely functional language like Haskell.
The ! is a convention meaning the function alters one (or more) previously allocated location.
For example the display function side-effects to the screen but doesn't alter anything else so it is not tagged with it.
This is a convention, and a Scheme one at that, not a Common Lisp one, so you could choose not to obey it but it would be considered bad to do so (obeying it makes your code more readable).
Side-effect/mutations are not considered as inherently bad (otherwise the language wouldn't have them and would be purely functional) but if you use them extensively it's like using C without pointers and a weird syntax so you wouldn't do it (except when you learn to think functionally or if you have a good reason to) because you would get all the disadvantages of Lisp (weird syntax) without any compelling advantages over C (functional style, macros...) given that you don't use them.
Long answer: the original answer was way longer and covered more ground but the lameness filter kicked in with too many junk characters and I just couldn't bypass it before getting fed up with it so if you are interested to read it e-mail me at: rousseauj1SPAM@yahoo.com (remove the SPAM of course) to send it to you.
"blah, i mistakenly put -ansi in there."
Then I want my $5 back.
"Lisp is a language for masochists who don't believe in variables."
Ok, it looks like you are either joking or trolling but for those wo do not know let me ask you this:
what part of (set! a 'fuck-you) is not variable to you?
From the Foldoc entry on cdr:
Historical note: The instruction format of the IBM 7090 that hosted the original LISP implementation featured two 15 bit fields called the "address" and "decrement" parts. The term "cdr" was originally "Contents of Decrement part of Register". Similarly, "car" stood for "Contents of Address part of Register".
"Writing a good optimizing compiler for that [Python's semantics] is hard"
"In Python, everything is an object, and thus conceptually everything requires a dynamic dispatch."
Maybe the Python compiler writers should try to see how the different Common Lisp implementations implement CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) given that most CL implementations can be compiled and that the semantic of CLOS are way more complicated than those of Python (google for CLOS, kiczales and the art of the MOP == Meta Object Protocol).
It probably will give them some ideas given that the CL compiler writers are aiming at solving a much harder problem with CLOS.
Yup, and I speak English every fucking day, it is not a dead language.
...
Now, I'm off to read the first written version of Beowulf which is in English, a non-dead language.
HWAET WE GARDE
na in geardagum eodcyninga
A lens?
Or some binoculars (it might take too much space though).
No, Vi and Emacs are totally different takes on the same thing (modal vs non-modal text editing) whereas Gnome and KDE are similar takes on the same thing.
While they have many common points they diverge both from the interface POV and from an "under the hood" POV but the interface part is much easier to integrate (like Bluecurve) than the under the hood part (integrating QT/GTK, although there is some progress with the event loops, or KParts/Bonobo).
It would would be more akin to merging Emacs and XEmacs.
Of course, now that I have written that somebody will write why I am wrong and cite viper-mode and vimacs... oh well, everybody has got teir opinion I guess.
Are you sure? 640mm is 25 inches*.
*And as another poster pointed out, your RAM is monodimensional.
Yeah, but most of them will be British troops so they won't be so far off the mark here.
There is no such thing as an Intellectual Property law.
IP is a political term used to refer transparently to copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets (and spread the meme of them being property rights as opposed to temporary monopolies granted by the people (at least in the US constitution)) so that you have copyright law or patent law but no intellectual property law.
The form of "IP" that you are thinking of is trademark which can be lost if you do not monitor their use by sending C&D letters to people using your trademark for their own product (e.g. if I started selling shoes called "adadas" or "reebok").
The problem with MP3 is that it is patented.
They let people use the patented algorithms for years without raising a stink and once everybody was using it they started asking for license fees.
If MP3 was only a trademark the wide use of the name without anybody objecting to it for years would have diluted the trademark and the could would deem that it is generic (anybody can use it).
No they are not immune (no more than Linux is) but I bet it would be much harder to make one one a Mac than on Windows.
As for you never having had a virus since 1990 (same for me) two questions:
1. How technically knowledgable are you.
2. How many less knowledgeable people do you know whose PC are not managed by you did get a virus in the last 4 years.
I'm afraid that you and me are statistical flukes and that statistically speaking it is more secure to be on Mac or on Linux or any OS beside Windows.
And if Mac OR Linux OR both get enough marketshare to attract virus writer the problem still would not be nearly as bad as today because we would then have a polyculture of OS's that would make the spreading of the virus less efficient (that is unless we start seeing
Oh, BTW, I just wanted to warn you that your computer is full of viruses, but these are so stealthy that no AV software can detect them yet
I just wanted to thank you for sharing your emotional scarring with the rest of Slashdot when some less considerate person would have hoarded it all for themselves.
"The cheapest Macs run several times the price of a low-end PC but run slower."
That is, until the PC gets hit by a ton of viruses, spyware, adware, trojans... which slow it down to half the speed of the Mac.
Sorry, but Creative Commons is not revolutionary.
Like you said he took inspiration from Stallman with the GPL and extended the revolutionary concept of the GPL (which would be the copyleft concept) in some CC licenses (though not all of them) that better apply to non-software material.
This, by definition, is evolutionary over the revolutionary part of the GPL.
If you believe that applying the ideas of the GPL to non-software is revolutionary then you must also believe that applying the ideas of the real world to the Internet is revolutionary and, by extension, patent worthy. Maybe you do believe that but I don't.
This doesn't detract from his accomplishment and from his efforts whic h are both great and maybe CC has other revolutionary parts that I am unaware of but this one is not one of them.
I personally totally agree with his viewpoint of Open Source Software being focused on quality and pragmatism.
That's why I prefer Free Software which is focused on freedom and idealism.
Both are good, but I prefer the idealist part so I consider myself in the FS camp more than in the OSS camp.
What?
What kind of girly uses
Real men use cat >/dev/hda6 and translate the needed binary numbers to their corresponding ASCII characters IN OUR HEADS and we like it.
You young whippersnappers have it too easy nowadays.
"Believe me, I'd take the stuff home if I could, but then I'd technically be stealing. It has to be officially thrown away first."
So officially throw it away in the trash, take your id off, fish it from the trash as a civilian, put your id back on and move that reclaimed trash to your car.
If SCO's $699 price is relly a one time price and an insurance against just these risks does that mean that they will indemnify me when another company with alleges some of their IP is illegally in Linux and they ask me for $650?
Will they indemnify me for each such companies?
If so the easiest way to get rid of SCO is to have a dozen friends of yours claim exactly what SCO is claiming and offers licenses to use their IP and everybody buy the SCO license confident in the fact that SCO, being a company with such respect to "IP rights" and contracts, will pay the $650 * 12 necessary for these licenses.
If not, then SCO's license is no insurance at all and is totally useless as they cannot guarantee that their isn't any more alleged IP problems in Linux.
Yeah, but they will have to have him deported from Canada for being Unamerican. I think if they do that with every unamerican persons on the planet you will solve the illegal immigration problem in the US.