Frankly, I don't see the difference between buying virtual cats on the blockchain and buying money on the blockchain. Either way, you're buying a unique artifact recorded on the blockchain whose value is entirely determined by demand and the coherence and continuence of this particular blockchain.
Once you lock it to a blockchain, what's the difference between a dollar and a cat, anyway? They're both bits of crypto-secured information.
>What I cannot fathom, is how could anyone purposely >write a program to spy into my room, listening to >me or watching what I am doing? Doesn't anyone have >a conscious anymore? Come on. This is my house, my >life, stay the f@#k out!
Of course, if you weren't paranoid (given that near as I can tell, the installation seems to allow you to disable the webcam and microphone suppport), you might wonder if they didn't add the software to allow website designers to let you do visual messaging...ie, what the cameras and microphones were at least partially designed for in the first place...
After all, Windows is evil -- they detect your cameras, microphones, and keep tabs on All Your Data! Ban Microsoft; they make spyware, that looks at your data!
>Also, look at this quote (2nd paragraph) >[macromedia.com], from the Macromedia web site: >"The data is not public, but the privacy of this >data depends on the policies of the web site >where the movie is hosted."
>Translation: "We have arranged a situation in >which the privacy of your computer is out of your >control and is dependent on someone else." That >is becoming very close to the exact purpose of >spyware and malware.
>Translation 2: "We are moving toward a way of >making money in which we make it possible for web >sites to control a user's computer, without the >user's understanding or knowledgeable >permission."
Translation 3: "We are supporting the concept of cookies, that allow the user/developer to have saved state on the user's computer over multiple sessions".
1. Flash, as a vector format, is far more efficient
than sending a straight image. This doesn't
mean it isn't used when it shouldn't be.
2. It's not as often upgrades as you seem to think.
3. A fair amount of the time, it's actually used
to provide interactive content, in a way that's
far more efficient and lightweight than Java.
Note that Java has most of the problems you list with Flash, -including- huge download times (often) and plugin issues! Mostly, it would be very nice to have web DPS instead of flash to work with (but don't hold your breath), and it would be very good to have an open source flash (or other animated, interractive vector graphics format) available, but there isn't one at the moment.
The article seems very badly informed in any case -- what it seems to talk about regarding "storing information on your computer" is no more than flash's version of cookies!
Open source -still- doesn't mean "you can do anything we want you to do with this;" it means "you can do anything you want with this"; if they won't let you turn it into a toaster driver, if that's what suits your fancy (and you release the source:), it's not open source.
Non-unix OSes frequently attempt to "solve things from the ground up" by building the entire kit and kaboodle as one monolithic system tying the kernel and GUI together, thus allowing the user to configure and install the system without ever seeing anything but the GUI.
However...the Unix way (which Gnu and Linux have embraced, and rightly so) is that if you build your underlying tools small and good enough, you don't -have- to weld it all together, building the top level into the bottom level in an ugly beamoth.
Instead, if each of the low levels work well (better than some of them, like framebuffers/X, work now, mostly due to the idiocies of PC architecture), the user doesn't have to worry about them, and tools can be built that provide a consistent look and feel (even if it's a slighty different one for each distro) from the user prespective. That we aren't there yet certainly -doesn't- mean we aren't moving in that direction.
After all, the advantage of a patchwork quilt is that you can remove a single section, put in a new one...and aftewards, it still keeps you warm; only a badly sewn one will have unslightly, uncomfortable seams.
Larry wasn't talking about making functions return the current, bloated implementation of objects -- he was, instead, talking about adding a new implementation of object (based on a C struct) to perl, and having them return those -- implemented well, this shouldn't be much slower than the current (parsed) implementation such things, especially since often what you'll lose in having to make sub calls for stringify and numify you'll win by not having to translate the original structs in the first place.
An object is just a concept, not an implementation.
Thanks! You know, I discovered the Info system years and years ago (that would be '91, back when it was going to take over the world, and before the web started really taking off and HTML started blowing info's hypertext out of the water), and given the amount of stuff that -isn't- on it, it didn't even occur to me to look up the info page for CVS...I want a unified documentation system, whether it's info, or html, or man, or POD, or/usr/doc/, or whatever, but -something- nice and browsaable I can translate everything into; as it is, the documentation for everything is so spread out you need to Ask the Fucking Question before you can FTFM, much less RTFM.
While I like CVS quite a bit more than VSS, your impressions of VSS are a touch out of date -- the version of VSS I've used at work (we use both, depending on the project and where/what it's going to be hosted on) is client-server, has better permission control (ACL's all the way) than CVS without -major- hacking, and it's directory browsing (without checking the whole tree out) is rather useful (though CVSweb will give you something similar).
OTOH, CVS is -far- more configurable, is cross-platform in a way VSS can't match, and is far, far better for teams (you know, like when you want to -not- have a file locked for hours on end just 'cause someone's recoding a single subroutine in it? And with a cron job keeping our development environement in lockstep with CVS, testing on the live box gets rather clean.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, I don't see the difference between buying virtual cats on the blockchain and buying money on the blockchain. Either way, you're buying a unique artifact recorded on the blockchain whose value is entirely determined by demand and the coherence and continuence of this particular blockchain.
Once you lock it to a blockchain, what's the difference between a dollar and a cat, anyway? They're both bits of crypto-secured information.
And yet, Livejournal has plenty of paying users.
How can this be?
>What I cannot fathom, is how could anyone purposely
:)
>write a program to spy into my room, listening to
>me or watching what I am doing? Doesn't anyone have
>a conscious anymore? Come on. This is my house, my
>life, stay the f@#k out!
Of course, if you weren't paranoid (given that near as I can tell, the installation seems to allow you to disable the webcam and microphone suppport), you might wonder if they didn't add the software to allow website designers to let you do visual messaging...ie, what the cameras and microphones were at least partially designed for in the first place...
After all, Windows is evil -- they detect your cameras, microphones, and keep tabs on All Your Data! Ban Microsoft; they make spyware, that looks at your data!
Oh, right, MS -is- evil. Sorry.
Er....
>Also, look at this quote (2nd paragraph)
>[macromedia.com], from the Macromedia web site:
>"The data is not public, but the privacy of this
>data depends on the policies of the web site
>where the movie is hosted."
>Translation: "We have arranged a situation in
>which the privacy of your computer is out of your
>control and is dependent on someone else." That
>is becoming very close to the exact purpose of
>spyware and malware.
>Translation 2: "We are moving toward a way of
>making money in which we make it possible for web
>sites to control a user's computer, without the
>user's understanding or knowledgeable
>permission."
Translation 3: "We are supporting the concept of cookies, that allow the user/developer to have saved state on the user's computer over multiple sessions".
This paranoid ranting is, well, ridiculous.
1. Flash, as a vector format, is far more efficient
than sending a straight image. This doesn't
mean it isn't used when it shouldn't be.
2. It's not as often upgrades as you seem to think.
3. A fair amount of the time, it's actually used
to provide interactive content, in a way that's
far more efficient and lightweight than Java.
Note that Java has most of the problems you list with Flash, -including- huge download times (often) and plugin issues! Mostly, it would be very nice to have web DPS instead of flash to work with (but don't hold your breath), and it would be very good to have an open source flash (or other animated, interractive vector graphics format) available, but there isn't one at the moment.
The article seems very badly informed in any case -- what it seems to talk about regarding "storing information on your computer" is no more than flash's version of cookies!
Which....makes it not open source.
:), it's not open source.
Open source -still- doesn't mean "you can do anything we want you to do with this;" it means "you can do anything you want with this"; if they won't let you turn it into a toaster driver, if that's what suits your fancy (and you release the source
This is a solution to the wrong problem.
Non-unix OSes frequently attempt to "solve things from the ground up" by building the entire kit and kaboodle as one monolithic system tying the kernel and GUI together, thus allowing the user to configure and install the system without ever seeing anything but the GUI.
However...the Unix way (which Gnu and Linux have embraced, and rightly so) is that if you build your underlying tools small and good enough, you don't -have- to weld it all together, building the top level into the bottom level in an ugly beamoth.
Instead, if each of the low levels work well (better than some of them, like framebuffers/X, work now, mostly due to the idiocies of PC architecture), the user doesn't have to worry about them, and tools can be built that provide a consistent look and feel (even if it's a slighty different one for each distro) from the user prespective. That we aren't there yet certainly -doesn't- mean we aren't moving in that direction.
After all, the advantage of a patchwork quilt is that you can remove a single section, put in a new one...and aftewards, it still keeps you warm; only a badly sewn one will have unslightly, uncomfortable seams.
Man, did you -read- the Apocalypse?
Larry wasn't talking about making functions return the current, bloated implementation of objects -- he was, instead, talking about adding a new implementation of object (based on a C struct) to perl, and having them return those -- implemented well, this shouldn't be much slower than the current (parsed) implementation such things, especially since often what you'll lose in having to make sub calls for stringify and numify you'll win by not having to translate the original structs in the first place.
An object is just a concept, not an implementation.
Josh -- (of NY.pm)
Thanks! You know, I discovered the Info system years and years ago (that would be '91, back when it was going to take over the world, and before the web started really taking off and HTML started blowing info's hypertext out of the water), and given the amount of stuff that -isn't- on it, it didn't even occur to me to look up the info page for CVS...I want a unified documentation system, whether it's info, or html, or man, or POD, or /usr/doc/, or whatever, but -something- nice and browsaable I can translate everything into; as it is, the documentation for everything is so spread out you need to Ask the Fucking Question before you can FTFM, much less RTFM.
While I like CVS quite a bit more than VSS, your impressions of VSS are a touch out of date -- the version of VSS I've used at work (we use both, depending on the project and where/what it's going to be hosted on) is client-server, has better permission control (ACL's all the way) than CVS without -major- hacking, and it's directory browsing (without checking the whole tree out) is rather useful (though CVSweb will give you something similar).
OTOH, CVS is -far- more configurable, is cross-platform in a way VSS can't match, and is far, far better for teams (you know, like when you want to -not- have a file locked for hours on end just 'cause someone's recoding a single subroutine in it? And with a cron job keeping our development environement in lockstep with CVS, testing on the live box gets rather clean.