redirection and circular reference
on
CPRM Lecture
·
· Score: 2
the asx file points to an asf file which points back to itself....very strange
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Re:No problems saving it
on
CPRM Lecture
·
· Score: 2
Yeah? Try looking at the file you just saved with at text editor. It will say something like 'ASX 0023581-153-25.asx' The web server doesn't even send it unless it's the asx client making the request....
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
>>should do monsanto is to borg what ms is to dr. evil
Surely you jest...how could you possibly think that your analogy is clearer? Let's spell it out: microsoft is similar to monsanto in the same way that dr.evil is similar to borg. ie. one is very much smaller and less serious than the other.
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Uh....in case you didn't notice, this is slashdot here... ALL replies require Microsoft, Linux, IE and Bill Gates mother....duh!!!;-) But, in case the significance of it slipped by you, it's called an analogy....with just a touch of satire to give it that zesty tang...mmmmm....satirific....
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Monsanto is to Microsoft what the Borg are to Dr. Evil (Austin Powers). Bill's pathetic little attempts to take over the world with some crummy software has got nothing on the company that owns the genetic rights at least one ingredient in something like 80% of all the food we eat. If that doesn't scare you, I bet you're running an unpatched version of Bind (or IE 5;-)
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Despite the image of the grey-haired, spectacled mathematician, most math scholars agree that if you don't make your big discovery while your mind is still young and 'squishy'. In that respect Andrew Wiles (who proved Fermat's Last Theorem) is considered an abberation for making his major contribution in his 40's
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I sleep all night and I work all day
Of course it's not monopolistic....it's still too new. When they first started making cars, they had 3 wheels and 6 wheels and dashboard hibachis and everything else you can imagine. The market stabilizes eventually and the big players all produce the same stuff, over and over again. That's what we're seeing in the consumer electronics market, particularily with handheld/portable/wearable computing devices. The barriers to entry are still relatively low so any Tom, Dick and Harry can get his device on the market. Once it stablizes and mass-production makes it impossible for 'garage-based' shops to put out competitive products, THEN we'll see the monopolies.
I guess the key reason for standards among Linux distributions is for vendors of binaries....Oracle needs to be able to make some assumptions about where things are/should go if they're going to distribute distro-agnostic software. I think it's probably a lot easier (in general) to distribute binary software in the Micro$oft world at the moment. Maybe what we need is some generic tool for installing binaries (like Installshield) that can detect what it needs. After all, automake and autoconf makes it pretty easy to get stuff to BUILD on various distros/Solaris/*BSD/etc. It should be that easy to INSTALL as well.
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I sleep all night and I work all day
So Jason, what DO you think about SUVs? I saw this site a couple years ago - it cracks me up and I bet you would get a kick out of it too...
http://poseur.4x4.org/
A Turing machine is just about the simplest model for a computing device that is possible. It consists of an infinitely long tape with symbols on it and a head that can read and write on the tape as well as move to the left and right. There are a finite number of symbols and the head (pointer?) can exist in a finite number of states. Upon encountering a symbol while in a particular state, the machine will write a symbol and then move to the left or right (or halt). It can be proven that all computable problems can be solved with a machine of this nature and, in fact, our present, modern CPU's are really just elaborate abstractions of Turing machines. For a good explanation of this, try Gary William Flake's "Computational Beauty of Nature" or "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose.
is that we've got so many different CPU's and branches within types (how many x86 extensions are there now?) that compiler optimizations don't come close to keeping up. It's all well and good to have these fancy chips but if you don't have compilers to take advantage of the big registers and special opcodes, what good does it do? Linux is ported to lots of different architectures but doesn't necessarily take full advantage of them...take a look at linux distros for UltraSparc - they're still basically 32bit in userland. *sigh* Competition may be good for consumers but it's not so great for developers who have to support 10 million diverging platforms.
People like toys and they like convenience. There is always lots of talk about things advancing too fast but there are always young people growing up, using new technologies and all these devices insinuate themselves into our lives. Hell, Wired magazine ran an article about how hard it is for the Amish to keep their people from using things like cell phones..... When it comes right down to brass tacks, people like to microwave their burrito in 5 minutes. They want their doctor to have the most modern machines and they want to download Natalie Portman naked over their high speed internet connection. And once they get a taste, they can never go back.
Oh man, I ran that code and now I see what you mean....that's just nasty....why wouldn't they have made it behave like Pascal? If you nest functions in Pasquale, it still behaves properly. And the 'global' thing - it's useful but just having a scope operator like c++ (::foo) would save you having to clobber local variables as well. Ick. Oh well, python is still a pretty awesome language, even if you DO have to constantly use 'this.' in all your classes.
what exactly does the author of vyper mean when he says that python doesn't support lexical scoping properly? I've done a bit of work with python and always assumed that the scope of variables and classes was the same as for C or C++. Is he saying that variables don't pass out of scope at the end of a block? Or that it has dynamic scoping and that variables pass into scope depending on how the function was called? I guess I haven't delved deeply enough into python to be able to see what he's talking about.
What do you suppose happens when the government DOES "get it"? We wind up with things like Echelon and move ever closer to a police state. I for one, am happy that the government remains incompetent because at least then they're relatively harmless.
Now I'm not exactly a bug finding wizard but in the first five minutes I already noticed two big, obvious ones (at least with the Linux version):
1) Go to www.onion.com and notice that the popup javascript windows (horoscope, etc. in the top left corner) don't even appear as links, let alone work.
2) Try navigating around using the back button to return to a page - it tends to go back two instead of one page.
Not too impressive in my book....it looks 'real purty' but I'd rather have it work.
Python has lambda functions.....it also allows you to treat functions just like normal variables, assigning them, returning them from other functions, etc. Pretty nifty if you're into that sort of thing....
That may be a problem for python as well then...the code is sure nice and easy to look at...I can see people saying, "Gee, that looks like Basic" too. Python is just as powerful as Perl but way simpler and you can actually read the code too.
I took a course in Scheme and did alright - coding small things to do simple stuff is not that bad. Due to my personal limitations though, I just couldn't see how one could develop big, useful applications with them. I'm not saying that it couldn't be done but that years of procedural programming seems to have hardened my brain. For whatever reason, I just had trouble wrapping my head around it.
I've heard that functional languages are easier to learn for someone who has never programmed before. I think, however, that for people who have written a lot of procedural code, it's very difficult to get used to. Perhaps that's why: not enough people START with functional languages and, once you know procedural (or OOP), there's very little reason to switch since you can do most everything you need to. I guess you just choose your poison: Turing or Church.....
I remember when Katz used to write about his personal experiences (installing Linux, etc.) rather than his opinions. Is it just me or were those articles much more lively and interesting than most of what he writes now?
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada isn't called "Silicon Valley North" for nothing. There is a huge high tech presence there with companies like Nortel, QNX, Newbridge, etc. all having campuses there. All the high tech amenities (cable modems, DSL, digital cellular service, etc) are there as well and cheap.
Plus, as the nation's capitol, it is one of the cleanest and most beautiful cities I've ever seen. From my friend's 12th floor balcony, you look out over a forest...except that it's a city suburb with so many trees, you can't even SEE any houses (except in winter when the leaves fall off:-). There is a huge outdoor market downtown with cafe's, fruit stands, cheese shops, etc. and culture out the wazoo. Why, practically every week during the summer, there are a few blocks closed off somewhere for Italian week, Greek week, Chinese week, Indian week and so on. So, if you're looking for a beautiful, clean, safe, not too big (about 1 million if you include suburbs) town with lots of high tech jobs and great multiculturalism then Ottawa is the place for you.
Very good point. Maybe "The Cathedral and the Bazarre" should be on the required reading list for all corporate types who are planning on getting into Linux and Open Source/Free Software. If nothing else, it will help Eric's book sales out now that VA's stock valuation is back down....;-)
Call this a flame if you want but BOO HOO HOO. You chose the GPL for your software and this is EXACTLY the behaviour that it allows. It allows for code forking, modification, etc. Don't cry too hard though - at least it's not a BSD style license so the code is still being released. Eric Raymond's "unwritten rules" that all open source developers understand, discourage code forks and other "rude" behaviour. Companies like Corel feel they can influence a development path and, unfortunately, they're right. You don't have to incorporate their changes but they can go wandering merrily off down their own path. I'm not sure who said this but it seems apropos: "When you dine with the devil, use a very long spoon." We WANTED commercial companies to develop for Linux. There's bound to be consequences.
Not that many people read code so the comments are effectively hidden. Not that many people sit around trying strange key combinations or decompiling executables so the closed source easter eggs are hidden. When I think of "Easter Egg", I just think of a pleasant surprise that is not immediately obvious. Perhaps the type of easter egg that would be found in open source is fundamentally different. After all, the source code sort of IS the point n'est pas?
Slashdot Mirror
the asx file points to an asf file which points back to itself....very strange
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Yeah? Try looking at the file you just saved with at text editor. It will say something like 'ASX 0023581-153-25.asx' The web server doesn't even send it unless it's the asx client making the request....
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
>>should do monsanto is to borg what ms is to dr. evil
Surely you jest...how could you possibly think that your analogy is clearer? Let's spell it out: microsoft is similar to monsanto in the same way that dr.evil is similar to borg. ie. one is very much smaller and less serious than the other.
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Uh....in case you didn't notice, this is slashdot here... ALL replies require Microsoft, Linux, IE and Bill Gates mother....duh!!! ;-) But, in case the significance of it slipped by you, it's called an analogy....with just a touch of satire to give it that zesty tang...mmmmm....satirific....
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Monsanto is to Microsoft what the Borg are to Dr. Evil (Austin Powers). Bill's pathetic little attempts to take over the world with some crummy software has got nothing on the company that owns the genetic rights at least one ingredient in something like 80% of all the food we eat. If that doesn't scare you, I bet you're running an unpatched version of Bind (or IE 5 ;-)
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Despite the image of the grey-haired, spectacled mathematician, most math scholars agree that if you don't make your big discovery while your mind is still young and 'squishy'. In that respect Andrew Wiles (who proved Fermat's Last Theorem) is considered an abberation for making his major contribution in his 40's
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I sleep all night and I work all day
Of course it's not monopolistic....it's still too new. When they first started making cars, they had 3 wheels and 6 wheels and dashboard hibachis and everything else you can imagine. The market stabilizes eventually and the big players all produce the same stuff, over and over again. That's what we're seeing in the consumer electronics market, particularily with handheld/portable/wearable computing devices. The barriers to entry are still relatively low so any Tom, Dick and Harry can get his device on the market. Once it stablizes and mass-production makes it impossible for 'garage-based' shops to put out competitive products, THEN we'll see the monopolies.
I guess the key reason for standards among Linux distributions is for vendors of binaries....Oracle needs to be able to make some assumptions about where things are/should go if they're going to distribute distro-agnostic software. I think it's probably a lot easier (in general) to distribute binary software in the Micro$oft world at the moment. Maybe what we need is some generic tool for installing binaries (like Installshield) that can detect what it needs. After all, automake and autoconf makes it pretty easy to get stuff to BUILD on various distros/Solaris/*BSD/etc. It should be that easy to INSTALL as well.
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I sleep all night and I work all day
So Jason, what DO you think about SUVs? I saw this site a couple years ago - it cracks me up and I bet you would get a kick out of it too...
http://poseur.4x4.org/
A Turing machine is just about the simplest model for a computing device that is possible. It consists of an infinitely long tape with symbols on it and a head that can read and write on the tape as well as move to the left and right. There are a finite number of symbols and the head (pointer?) can exist in a finite number of states. Upon encountering a symbol while in a particular state, the machine will write a symbol and then move to the left or right (or halt). It can be proven that all computable problems can be solved with a machine of this nature and, in fact, our present, modern CPU's are really just elaborate abstractions of Turing machines. For a good explanation of this, try Gary William Flake's "Computational Beauty of Nature" or "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose.
is that we've got so many different CPU's and branches within types (how many x86 extensions are there now?) that compiler optimizations don't come close to keeping up. It's all well and good to have these fancy chips but if you don't have compilers to take advantage of the big registers and special opcodes, what good does it do? Linux is ported to lots of different architectures but doesn't necessarily take full advantage of them...take a look at linux distros for UltraSparc - they're still basically 32bit in userland. *sigh* Competition may be good for consumers but it's not so great for developers who have to support 10 million diverging platforms.
People like toys and they like convenience. There is always lots of talk about things advancing too fast but there are always young people growing up, using new technologies and all these devices insinuate themselves into our lives. Hell, Wired magazine ran an article about how hard it is for the Amish to keep their people from using things like cell phones..... When it comes right down to brass tacks, people like to microwave their burrito in 5 minutes. They want their doctor to have the most modern machines and they want to download Natalie Portman naked over their high speed internet connection. And once they get a taste, they can never go back.
I took your code and tried something else - even more nasty:
foo = 'This'
def frotz():
foo = 'The other'
if 1 :
print foo
if 1 :
foo = 'Yet another'
print foo
if 1 :
global foo
print foo
if 1 :
print foo
frotz()
output:
The other
Yet another
This
This
ICK!!! the global variable clobbers the local from that point on....
Oh man, I ran that code and now I see what you mean....that's just nasty....why wouldn't they have made it behave like Pascal? If you nest functions in Pasquale, it still behaves properly. And the 'global' thing - it's useful but just having a scope operator like c++ (::foo) would save you having to clobber local variables as well. Ick. Oh well, python is still a pretty awesome language, even if you DO have to constantly use 'this.' in all your classes.
what exactly does the author of vyper mean when he says that python doesn't support lexical scoping properly? I've done a bit of work with python and always assumed that the scope of variables and classes was the same as for C or C++. Is he saying that variables don't pass out of scope at the end of a block? Or that it has dynamic scoping and that variables pass into scope depending on how the function was called? I guess I haven't delved deeply enough into python to be able to see what he's talking about.
What do you suppose happens when the government DOES "get it"? We wind up with things like Echelon and move ever closer to a police state. I for one, am happy that the government remains incompetent because at least then they're relatively harmless.
Now I'm not exactly a bug finding wizard but in the first five minutes I already noticed two big, obvious ones (at least with the Linux version):
1) Go to www.onion.com and notice that the popup javascript windows (horoscope, etc. in the top left corner) don't even appear as links, let alone work.
2) Try navigating around using the back button to return to a page - it tends to go back two instead of one page.
Not too impressive in my book....it looks 'real purty' but I'd rather have it work.
Python has lambda functions.....it also allows you to treat functions just like normal variables, assigning them, returning them from other functions, etc. Pretty nifty if you're into that sort of thing....
That may be a problem for python as well then...the code is sure nice and easy to look at...I can see people saying, "Gee, that looks like Basic" too. Python is just as powerful as Perl but way simpler and you can actually read the code too.
I took a course in Scheme and did alright - coding small things to do simple stuff is not that bad. Due to my personal limitations though, I just couldn't see how one could develop big, useful applications with them. I'm not saying that it couldn't be done but that years of procedural programming seems to have hardened my brain. For whatever reason, I just had trouble wrapping my head around it.
I've heard that functional languages are easier to learn for someone who has never programmed before. I think, however, that for people who have written a lot of procedural code, it's very difficult to get used to. Perhaps that's why: not enough people START with functional languages and, once you know procedural (or OOP), there's very little reason to switch since you can do most everything you need to. I guess you just choose your poison: Turing or Church.....
I remember when Katz used to write about his personal experiences (installing Linux, etc.) rather than his opinions. Is it just me or were those articles much more lively and interesting than most of what he writes now?
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada isn't called "Silicon Valley North" for nothing. There is a huge high tech presence there with companies like Nortel, QNX, Newbridge, etc. all having campuses there. All the high tech amenities (cable modems, DSL, digital cellular service, etc) are there as well and cheap.
:-). There is a huge outdoor market downtown with cafe's, fruit stands, cheese shops, etc. and culture out the wazoo. Why, practically every week during the summer, there are a few blocks closed off somewhere for Italian week, Greek week, Chinese week, Indian week and so on. So, if you're looking for a beautiful, clean, safe, not too big (about 1 million if you include suburbs) town with lots of high tech jobs and great multiculturalism then Ottawa is the place for you.
Plus, as the nation's capitol, it is one of the cleanest and most beautiful cities I've ever seen.
From my friend's 12th floor balcony, you look out over a forest...except that it's a city suburb with so many trees, you can't even SEE any houses (except in winter when the leaves fall off
Very good point. Maybe "The Cathedral and the Bazarre" should be on the required reading list for all corporate types who are planning on getting into Linux and Open Source/Free Software. If nothing else, it will help Eric's book sales out now that VA's stock valuation is back down....;-)
Call this a flame if you want but BOO HOO HOO. You chose the GPL for your software and this is EXACTLY the behaviour that it allows. It allows for code forking, modification, etc. Don't cry too hard though - at least it's not a BSD style license so the code is still being released. Eric Raymond's "unwritten rules" that all open source developers understand, discourage code forks and other "rude" behaviour. Companies like Corel feel they can influence a development path and, unfortunately, they're right. You don't have to incorporate their changes but they can go wandering merrily off down their own path. I'm not sure who said this but it seems apropos: "When you dine with the devil, use a very long spoon." We WANTED commercial companies to develop for Linux. There's bound to be consequences.
Not that many people read code so the comments are effectively hidden. Not that many people sit around trying strange key combinations or decompiling executables so the closed source easter eggs are hidden. When I think of "Easter Egg", I just think of a pleasant surprise that is not immediately obvious. Perhaps the type of easter egg that would be found in open source is fundamentally different. After all, the source code sort of IS the point n'est pas?