Works on everywhere where the same version of Java is and there are no apps that don't require a conflicting version.
Indeed. I've given up even trying to install Java now; the conflicts in the versions were costing much more time and effort than the ability to run Java apps could pay back.
Which was a shame since I'd just written my first Java app, but I'd used Java 5 since it finally had a half-decent object system and that screwed up everything else.
Considering the number of over-budget, under-performing, or just plain never delivered projects that BCS members are responsible for every year, who gives a flying fuck what they think?
But at least they've got a nice club where they can all meet and pass around contracts to their friends. Cretins.
When I was at Uni the BCS tried to get us to join; I'd not recommend any of the people that did so for any serious work.
Should that ever happen, it would take a few nanoseconds for the truth about the fake-linux to come out. The company responsible would be mocked and humiliated in every form of IT media that exists, including here on/.
What, you mean the same way all those TCO-studies-for-hire have been?
PHBs don't read/. or anything else IT-related. They do, however, go to MS-sponsored beanos where they get told all sorts of crap.
What I'm fine about is that I now no longer have to worry about receiving extortion notices from laywers demanding bribes ( aka trademark licensing fees ) of thousands of dollars just because I mention that my small business sells Linux support, or systems pre-configured with Linux!
I know what you're getting at but I don't think that was ever an issue. The real point was to stop companies trading as Linux companies; but it's a fine line indeed and depends on how much you trust Linus.
Remember the whole 'free as in speech' aspect of the GPL that the linux kernel is licensed under? That particular freedom has now been upheld in the domain of language and communication, which is a damn fine thing.
No, this is BSD, not GPL, which means any bastard can now use it against the very people that created it, just as Microsoft are happy to use BSD-licensed code to support their efforts to destroy BSD.
They probably did. Is there something wrong with that?
If it means an inferior product, yes. Plus, I have a problem with Jobs declaring what a great thing it is to have gone with the #2 chip maker just because they bribed him.
Wasn't the free market supposed to be about the consumer getting the better product due to competition?
But to say Apple hasn't had problems with supply is really pretty staggeringly wrong, no offense intended.
None taken, since you are right. But I would suggest that their problems have been caused by the inability of getting new chips released on time which has had drastic knock-on effects on their roadmaps and order fulfilment. Especially when combined with Apple's traditional approach of clearing out supplies of the old machines before a launch - only to find that the new machines aren't ready yet. It has been maddening for them. I think this is a much bigger issue than ongoing supply of current generation chips. But I don't think AMD show any sign of being particularly unreliable on either new or continuing supply.
You get additional demerits for using the "not," too. That's irony for the irony impaired, circa 1992.
Yeah, well, maybe I liked circa 1992, didya ever think of that, huh?
Innovative designs, that means they need hot, slow chips.
And they sell such huge quanitites that supply is a very important issue. Not.
Intel bunged them in the form of huge discounts, simple as that. No one in their right mind would use Intel processors for desktop machines at the moment and, for that matter, there's no reason Apple couldn't have gone with Intel for the laptops and AMD for the desk.
ALL of which is beside the point that the problem with the PowerPC seems to have been on the compiler side, not the hardware.
First, it's a sign of sanity - all too rare in government bodies in charge of intellectual property protection.
I'm not sure how this is a good or sane thing. In what sense can the term "Linux" possibly be generic? If it's generic, what other uses overlap with the correct one? "Hoover" clearly became synonymous with vacuum cleaners in general, what has "Linux" become synonymous with? Operating systems? Hardly!
Second - it's ten times better for the term to be un-trademarkable than for it to be trademarked, even in the hands of someone theoretically trustworthy.
So you think that it's fine that Microsoft can now release basically any load of old toss (eg, Windows) and label it "Linux"? Or anyone else for that matter.
TWW
Will they take Blogs out of the main index now?
on
Google's Blog Search
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Music is not something that can be defined in language. That is the trick that Cage pulled with this so-called piece. By drawing foolish critics into trying to say why it wasn't music he was able to side-step them because it can't be done in language. When they failed to define music, or why his childish prank was not music, his supporters then proclaimed that it must therefore be music, handily ignoring the fact that they would be unable to meet the same challenge and define why it was (other than resorting to "because a musician we like said it was").
It's rather like asking someone to define colour and when they fail, as they must, say that therefore "teapot" is a valid colour, indeed that the boundaries of colour have been pushed back by their bold assertion that "teapot" is in fact a valid colour.
If asked why teapot is not a colour, my answer is "don't be a fuckwit", not a deep discussion of wavelengths and cones, or somesuch, just as when asked if Cage's 4'33" (or whatever it was called) is music my answer is "don't be a twat" rather than a deep discussion of wavelenghs, tone, and harmony.
Put another way: I can show you some music and I can show you some things which are not music, but I can not hope, within the limitations of language, to ever capture the subtlties of the subject in an iron-clad and legalistic definition. Asking me to simply shows the bankruptcy of your philosophy and reveals it to be based on nothing more than the sort of semantic buffoonary characteristic of minds which stopped developing around the time their owners' first zits arrived.
He was also an important philosopher, and with his piece 4'33" , he broadened the definition of what is and is not music, just for all you people who are claiming that this stuff "isn't music"
No, he broadened the definition of what pompous assholes would describe as music. Actual music, and people who like music, were unaffected.
but that doesn't mean that science is opposed to religion any more than science is opposed to failed theories...
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that science is opposed to failed theories. If you accept that science is an attempt to tell the truth then it must at some level be opposed to, for example, teaching Lamarckian evolution, just as it must at some level be opposed to teaching that Genesis as literal truth. If, like me, you think science is actually an attempt to reveal untruths, then this goes double.
the memory footprint of all applications will double just because the address size has.
The address size isn't the issue, it's the data size. If all your ints are now 64bits by default, then naturally they'll take up twice the amount of RAM.
Science is the study of the things of nature and if "God" created the Cosmos, then you should be able to find a "fingerprint" of a design.
"If".
The problem is that if God didn't design the universe, and there's no reason to think a sane (or at least friendly) mind was involved, then science must be free to say so. Religion, as I said, is dogma and unpleasant truths are simply outlawed. Therefore, science and religion are polar opposites by their very nature. That's not to say that occassionally a religious work might not sometimes be right just by chance, just as with any work of fiction it's not all fairy stories, just most of it.
It seems to me wholly compatible with Christianity to trust science (our extended senses) to analyze the nature of material reality.
Only superficially. Ultimately, science is about questioning and religion is about dogma (or "faith" if you prefer) and in the final analysis that means they are totally opposed to each other.
A nice lie like Chirstianity is still a lie; we're better off not knowing than living with that.
No, it's a matter of copyright law and since the US and the UK have very close ties in that field, and the BBC has a legal entity in the US which owns the copyright, that means they can drag you into a US court any time they want.
China can't so easily, I agree, but the US's relationship to other countries varies; the UK is one of the closer ones (much to the UK population's disadvantage).
I really can't see why you think CSS is connected with XHTML. I use HTML 4 with CSS all the time; the box model of layout is fundimental to the way I work (which is often dynamically in PHP and Perl). XHTML adds nothing to that, and as far as I'm aware does not try to add anything to that which is not in HTML 4.
I don't think that is what they mean, I think they just mean "validates".
Case insensitivity in HTML is an unnecessary feature. All it does is make code slightly more confusing and difficult to read.
And easier to write. NO language, HTML, C++, Perl, whatever, should be case sensitive. It simply increases the number of errors (and often they are hard errors to find) for zero return. Having two variables (or whatever) which differ only in case is BAD programming of the highest order. Allowing it in your langage is bad design.
A paragraph break is an event, however, the paragraph itself is an element of the document structure.
No it's not. The DIV and SPAN tags and a few others are structure; paragraphs are formatting pure and simple. There is no point in having/p or/li tags as p and li achieve all that is needed. If HTML were a database language then perhaps the requirement for closing tags would be more than pedantic timewasting from a committee more concerned with making work for itself than producing useful standards.
Quoting attributes makes code more clear and less error-prone.
Yes, sometimes. Making it a requirement is pointless and causes errors, particularly when dealing with numerical data. Quotes are hardly ever needed in HTML; why make more work for the author?
Removal of attribute minimization also just makes fore cleaner, more deliberate code which clears up ambiguity.
It makes for redundant and confusing code for, once again, zero benefit to the user or author, and is a classic piece of brain dead design. Any time you find yourself having to type something like 'clicked="clicked"' you know the language designer is an anally retentive buffoon.
As you can see, XHTML aims to make HTML more clean, standardized, and reusable.
If that's what it's aiming for, it missed. It's less clean with the addition of extra tags and attributes which add nothing to the utility except some extra chances to make a mistake, it may indeed standardise HTML but it is standardising it to a database language rather than a useful text markup language, and in fact it does nothing much for reusability as it happens in the real world - again, the designers' confusion between what a markup language has to do and a data storage language has to do leads to pie-in-the-sky theorising with no regard to the real world.
No, it is not perfect, but having switched from HTML to XHTML, I find it to be a much more pleasent environment to code in.
Well, you must be a masochist with RSI, then! XHTML is badly designed, wordy, error-producing, needless, garbage.
Always remember: the more rules you have, the more mistakes you will make. HTML is not something that needs formal proving; it is not rocket science and shouldn't be.
On the other hand, XHTML is a pile of shit designed by idiots. Just look at the "Differences with HTML 4" section:
Documents must be well-formed. Okay, this one's fair enough in theory, although meaningless in reality.
Element and attribute names must be in lower case. Stupid, moronic change for no purpose. Anyone that uses LI distinctly from li should be shot, and anyone that thinks you should be allowed to should be shot along with them.
For non-empty elements, end tags are required. Stupid, moronic change for no purpose. A paragraph break is an event, unlike embolding. It does not need a closing tag. HTML is not XML or even SGML, nor does it have to be.
Attribute values must always be quoted Why? What does this achieve?
XML does not support attribute minimization. That's because it's brain-dead. Why pollute HTML with XML's mistakes?
Oh, well, you get the idea; it just goes on and on.
XHTML is based on the entirely erroneous idea that Hypertext should be some generalised data storage system. It shouldn't. It should be an easy, flexible method of marking up text for a browser to render to the user. IT IS NOT A FUCKING DATABASE. In particular, HTML does not need to validate. It should, sure, but no one's going to tolerate a browser that simply refuses to display malformed markup. The browser simply HAS to make a stab at rendering, and to hell with DTDs and the rest of it - that's just classic XML masturbation.
Goddamn XML people and their "one size fits all" approach to everything.
The existence of this webpage is one major reason why I prefer to avoid MySQL. The people behind MySQL not have a Do No Evil stance
I don't understand the problem. That page is for your NON-GPL applications. GPL apps act as normal. It's pretty usual for companies to offer a non-gpl license to anyone that wants to pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. I've given up even trying to install Java now; the conflicts in the versions were costing much more time and effort than the ability to run Java apps could pay back.
Which was a shame since I'd just written my first Java app, but I'd used Java 5 since it finally had a half-decent object system and that screwed up everything else.
TWW
But at least they've got a nice club where they can all meet and pass around contracts to their friends. Cretins.
When I was at Uni the BCS tried to get us to join; I'd not recommend any of the people that did so for any serious work.
TWW
What, you mean the same way all those TCO-studies-for-hire have been?
PHBs don't read /. or anything else IT-related. They do, however, go to MS-sponsored beanos where they get told all sorts of crap.
What I'm fine about is that I now no longer have to worry about receiving extortion notices from laywers demanding bribes ( aka trademark licensing fees ) of thousands of dollars just because I mention that my small business sells Linux support, or systems pre-configured with Linux!
I know what you're getting at but I don't think that was ever an issue. The real point was to stop companies trading as Linux companies; but it's a fine line indeed and depends on how much you trust Linus.
Remember the whole 'free as in speech' aspect of the GPL that the linux kernel is licensed under? That particular freedom has now been upheld in the domain of language and communication, which is a damn fine thing.
No, this is BSD, not GPL, which means any bastard can now use it against the very people that created it, just as Microsoft are happy to use BSD-licensed code to support their efforts to destroy BSD.
TWW
Er...isn't faking things the whole point of Photoshop?
TWW
If it means an inferior product, yes. Plus, I have a problem with Jobs declaring what a great thing it is to have gone with the #2 chip maker just because they bribed him.
Wasn't the free market supposed to be about the consumer getting the better product due to competition?
TWW
None taken, since you are right. But I would suggest that their problems have been caused by the inability of getting new chips released on time which has had drastic knock-on effects on their roadmaps and order fulfilment. Especially when combined with Apple's traditional approach of clearing out supplies of the old machines before a launch - only to find that the new machines aren't ready yet. It has been maddening for them. I think this is a much bigger issue than ongoing supply of current generation chips. But I don't think AMD show any sign of being particularly unreliable on either new or continuing supply.
You get additional demerits for using the "not," too. That's irony for the irony impaired, circa 1992.
Yeah, well, maybe I liked circa 1992, didya ever think of that, huh?
TWW
And they sell such huge quanitites that supply is a very important issue. Not.
Intel bunged them in the form of huge discounts, simple as that. No one in their right mind would use Intel processors for desktop machines at the moment and, for that matter, there's no reason Apple couldn't have gone with Intel for the laptops and AMD for the desk.
ALL of which is beside the point that the problem with the PowerPC seems to have been on the compiler side, not the hardware.
TWW
Why was this moderated "Troll" when it was clearly humour?
TW
I'm not sure how this is a good or sane thing. In what sense can the term "Linux" possibly be generic? If it's generic, what other uses overlap with the correct one? "Hoover" clearly became synonymous with vacuum cleaners in general, what has "Linux" become synonymous with? Operating systems? Hardly!
Second - it's ten times better for the term to be un-trademarkable than for it to be trademarked, even in the hands of someone theoretically trustworthy.
So you think that it's fine that Microsoft can now release basically any load of old toss (eg, Windows) and label it "Linux"? Or anyone else for that matter.
TWW
TWW
Nope, never heard of it untill now. Wish I still hadn't!
TWW
If even the kernel isn't going to use 64bit data it's not much of a 64bit OS, is it?!
TWW
Music is not something that can be defined in language. That is the trick that Cage pulled with this so-called piece. By drawing foolish critics into trying to say why it wasn't music he was able to side-step them because it can't be done in language. When they failed to define music, or why his childish prank was not music, his supporters then proclaimed that it must therefore be music, handily ignoring the fact that they would be unable to meet the same challenge and define why it was (other than resorting to "because a musician we like said it was").
It's rather like asking someone to define colour and when they fail, as they must, say that therefore "teapot" is a valid colour, indeed that the boundaries of colour have been pushed back by their bold assertion that "teapot" is in fact a valid colour.
If asked why teapot is not a colour, my answer is "don't be a fuckwit", not a deep discussion of wavelengths and cones, or somesuch, just as when asked if Cage's 4'33" (or whatever it was called) is music my answer is "don't be a twat" rather than a deep discussion of wavelenghs, tone, and harmony.
Put another way: I can show you some music and I can show you some things which are not music, but I can not hope, within the limitations of language, to ever capture the subtlties of the subject in an iron-clad and legalistic definition. Asking me to simply shows the bankruptcy of your philosophy and reveals it to be based on nothing more than the sort of semantic buffoonary characteristic of minds which stopped developing around the time their owners' first zits arrived.
TWW
No, he broadened the definition of what pompous assholes would describe as music. Actual music, and people who like music, were unaffected.
TWW
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that science is opposed to failed theories. If you accept that science is an attempt to tell the truth then it must at some level be opposed to, for example, teaching Lamarckian evolution, just as it must at some level be opposed to teaching that Genesis as literal truth. If, like me, you think science is actually an attempt to reveal untruths, then this goes double.
TWW
The address size isn't the issue, it's the data size. If all your ints are now 64bits by default, then naturally they'll take up twice the amount of RAM.
TWW
"If".
The problem is that if God didn't design the universe, and there's no reason to think a sane (or at least friendly) mind was involved, then science must be free to say so. Religion, as I said, is dogma and unpleasant truths are simply outlawed. Therefore, science and religion are polar opposites by their very nature. That's not to say that occassionally a religious work might not sometimes be right just by chance, just as with any work of fiction it's not all fairy stories, just most of it.
By the way, your signature is spelt incorrectly.
TWW
Only superficially. Ultimately, science is about questioning and religion is about dogma (or "faith" if you prefer) and in the final analysis that means they are totally opposed to each other.
A nice lie like Chirstianity is still a lie; we're better off not knowing than living with that.
TWW
No, it's a matter of copyright law and since the US and the UK have very close ties in that field, and the BBC has a legal entity in the US which owns the copyright, that means they can drag you into a US court any time they want.
China can't so easily, I agree, but the US's relationship to other countries varies; the UK is one of the closer ones (much to the UK population's disadvantage).
TWW
In New Orleans, it's not even all that metaphorical.
TWW
All signs indicate that it'll be lucky to beat "Highlander II", I'm afraid.
TWW
TWW
I don't think that is what they mean, I think they just mean "validates".
Case insensitivity in HTML is an unnecessary feature. All it does is make code slightly more confusing and difficult to read.
And easier to write. NO language, HTML, C++, Perl, whatever, should be case sensitive. It simply increases the number of errors (and often they are hard errors to find) for zero return. Having two variables (or whatever) which differ only in case is BAD programming of the highest order. Allowing it in your langage is bad design.
A paragraph break is an event, however, the paragraph itself is an element of the document structure.
No it's not. The DIV and SPAN tags and a few others are structure; paragraphs are formatting pure and simple. There is no point in having /p or /li tags as p and li achieve all that is needed. If HTML were a database language then perhaps the requirement for closing tags would be more than pedantic timewasting from a committee more concerned with making work for itself than producing useful standards.
Quoting attributes makes code more clear and less error-prone.
Yes, sometimes. Making it a requirement is pointless and causes errors, particularly when dealing with numerical data. Quotes are hardly ever needed in HTML; why make more work for the author?
Removal of attribute minimization also just makes fore cleaner, more deliberate code which clears up ambiguity.
It makes for redundant and confusing code for, once again, zero benefit to the user or author, and is a classic piece of brain dead design. Any time you find yourself having to type something like 'clicked="clicked"' you know the language designer is an anally retentive buffoon.
As you can see, XHTML aims to make HTML more clean, standardized, and reusable.
If that's what it's aiming for, it missed. It's less clean with the addition of extra tags and attributes which add nothing to the utility except some extra chances to make a mistake, it may indeed standardise HTML but it is standardising it to a database language rather than a useful text markup language, and in fact it does nothing much for reusability as it happens in the real world - again, the designers' confusion between what a markup language has to do and a data storage language has to do leads to pie-in-the-sky theorising with no regard to the real world.
No, it is not perfect, but having switched from HTML to XHTML, I find it to be a much more pleasent environment to code in.
Well, you must be a masochist with RSI, then! XHTML is badly designed, wordy, error-producing, needless, garbage.
Always remember: the more rules you have, the more mistakes you will make. HTML is not something that needs formal proving; it is not rocket science and shouldn't be.
TWW
XHTML is based on the entirely erroneous idea that Hypertext should be some generalised data storage system. It shouldn't. It should be an easy, flexible method of marking up text for a browser to render to the user. IT IS NOT A FUCKING DATABASE. In particular, HTML does not need to validate. It should, sure, but no one's going to tolerate a browser that simply refuses to display malformed markup. The browser simply HAS to make a stab at rendering, and to hell with DTDs and the rest of it - that's just classic XML masturbation.
Goddamn XML people and their "one size fits all" approach to everything.
TWW
I don't understand the problem. That page is for your NON-GPL applications. GPL apps act as normal. It's pretty usual for companies to offer a non-gpl license to anyone that wants to pay for it.
TWW