Unfortunately, Dia is a klunky, buggy piece of shit. Trying to do anything even slightly complicated in it (ER or UML diagrams, for example) results in ugly, brittle layouts (like relationship arity specifiers overlapping with the objects on either end of the relationship), and printing is an absolute joke (I have to *manually* set the page scaling in order to get my diagram to come out on a single page? Really??).
No, unfortunately Dia is a truly pale replacement for Visio. And, AFAIK, that isn't going to change any time soon: has one developer working on it part time (hell, the gap between 0.96 and 0.97 was *two years*).
A guy I work with is a Linux Fan. He's technically advanced.
No, he's really not. If he was even slightly competent, he'd know he could just right-click on the folder in Nautilus, select the Share tab, and click "Guest access". Alternatively, he could set up a user for you, and grant that user access to the folder.
Either way, your friend is clearly not as bright as you think he is.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, in addition to the requirements placed on registrants, CIRA also has a set of rules for registrars. Of interest is item 2.1:
Canadian Presence Requirements. Applicants must meet the requirements of CIRA's Canadian Presence Requirements for Registrants (located at www.cira.ca/en/document/CPR.pdf).
So, not only did you violate the terms of the registrant agreement, but godaddy is also not doing their diligence to ensure they are enforcing the presence requirements. 'course, it may be that godaddy will eventually come around and revoke your registration... if not, it might be grounds for having them reported to CIRA.
I think, correct me if I am wrong, what you're saying is, by registering this domain, I agree to be bound by the CIRA?
Correct. Specifically, by registering a.ca domain, you are bound by CIRA's Registrant Agreement, which, among other things, includes the Canadian Presence Requirements. Violating those requirements will result in the cancellation of your domain name registration (assuming you're caught, of course... odds are Facebook would be).
Funny how gun control nuts always pick on the UK, while firearms are similarly restricted in dozens of other countries, and yet they are arguably freer, safer nations than either the US or the UK.
Then again, I suppose it's human nature. It's a lot easier to cherry-pick facts and live in an echo chamber. Certainly it's far more comforting, as you never have to worry about being wrong...
I see what you're saying, but really, if I set up a website that is called SpeakingFrenchSucks.ca just to bash the French language, is that operating in Canada?
No, you've got it entirely backwards.
You *can't* register SpeakingFrenchSucks.ca *unless* you are "operating in Canada", as per the rules as set out by CIRA.
Of course Java is a dynamic duck-typed language as well. You just have to use the Reflection API.
Okay, I'm sorry, this is just getting fucking out of hand. If Java is "duck-typed", then the phrase "duck-typed" has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
Now, if Wikipedia is to be believed, "duck-typing" means writing code such that you don't care about types. You invoke methods on objects, and they either work or they don't because, at run time, everything is worked out for you (because duck-typed languages are inevitably dynamically typed and dispatched). But the key is *you don't care about types*. *Not* that you can use a convoluted reflection system to carefully wheedle out the types at run-time and get things to work by hand.
So no, I'm sorry, Java is *not* duck-typed. Moreover, that's *not* a bad thing. Dynamic typing is awfully nice in some scenarios, but it's no panacea. To see the other side of the coin, see Haskell, where types are everywhere, but thanks to type inference, you don't have to deal with them directly unless you want to. But, again, note, this is *not* duck-typing... if you try to invoke function X with argument A, and no definition exists for X(A), it'll tell you, and the compile will fail, while in a dynamically typed and dispatched language, you won't find out until the call fails are runtime.
And, as an aside, the fact that you can do away with inner classes isn't too terribly impressive given how absolutely useless they are. First class functions and lambdas, OTOH, now *those* are handy... pity Java *still* doesn't have them.
It's not the uncanny valley. It's just that it plain doesn't look anything like reality in the first place. The biggest culprit is the lighting, which pretty much no game has ever managed to get anywhere near right. I doubt anybody's even trying.
Need I point out that most movies don't have realistic lighting, either? Last I checked, the world wasn't filtered in green or blue, washed out in grays and beiges, or hyper saturated.
Creating an underclass of ex-cons who can no longer integrate effectively into society is a great way to ensure that criminals re-offend. Voting, in particular, is a right, not a privilege, and the government should never have the power to take that right away, ever (well, unless you like the idea of the government disenfranchising people based on the very laws they passed).
Yes I can. Pharma in 2006 made about $40 billion in profit. That's worldwide, and that includes non-prescription drugs. $100 billion - $40 billion = $60 billion that, by definition, is not "soaking" us. Also, they would move to protect profits, thus cutting spending.
See, that wasn't so hard, was it?:)
Incidentally, you seem to assume that the US is subsidizing R&D and other costs of operation. I would claim they aren't. Instead, I would say that the US, if it's subsidizing anything, it's subsidizing the very advertising/marketing that's being directed at US consumers. Force drug prices down, and I'm willing to bet the companies would cut costs on advertising (they already spend a relative pittance on R&D, ie 10-20% tops, so there's not much they can cut in that area).
A much better criticism of my initial statement, if you want to attack it, is that $100 billion isn't that big of a dent in our health care spending, which I believe is over $4 trillion. Indeed, adopting Canadian-style drug coverage would seem to only save us about 2.5%. So my statement that part of the reason the US spends more on health care because it is effectively subsidizing everyone else may be true, but the portion of our health care costs due to the "subsidy" is pretty low. We have much bigger issues than the cost of drugs.
Yes, certainly true. Though, it's worth noting that that 2.5% most likely disproportionately affects the middle- and lower-class, and the 40M insured, none of which can afford those sky-high drug costs.
Nevertheless, I suppose I should thank you for going back and refuting your own claim (that drug costs account for much of the US's ballooning healthcare costs).:)
Fact: you still haven't actually provided evidence. No, a bunch of numbers tied together with baseless suppositions doesn't actually qualify.
In what way is that $100 billion not acting as a subsidy?
Because, until you can demonstrate that that $100 billion isn't just gravy, it looks to me like big pharma is just soaking US customers because they *can*, not because they *must*.
I think that's a bad idea. It used to be illegal, and so doctors were the arbiter. Doctors got so much free stuff that it seemed positively crooked.
What part of "[outlaw]... the various perks they hand out to doctors and other caregivers" don't you understand? Honestly, other countries can do it (here in Canada, direct-to-consumer drug marketing is illegal, and we don't seem to have this bribary problem you fear), so why can't you?
The problem is that there is not a good replacement system in place for educating doctors about new medications.
Yes there is. It's called medical conferences, trade papers, and regular old fashioned leaflets. Informing doctors about new medications does not necessarily lead to bribary unless the US government allows it.
Honestly, do you *really* believe that doctors find out about the latest heart medications from commercials they spot on late-night TV? Please...
Second, you seem to think that I am against health care reform and you seem to be demonizing me.
Not at all. I just think you're barking up the wrong tree:
a) The supposition that the pharmaceutical industry overcharges US customers to cover costs of other nations is unsupported speculation, b) The idea that the cost of drugs comes primarily from R&D is absurd, c) The idea that the pharma industry can't be reformed and regulated in order to reduce healthcare costs is, at best, myopic.
Basically, you seem willing to simply accept, as a matter of course, the horrendous behaviour of big pharma, and would rather shift the blame for costs and so forth to other nations, presumably because it's easy. ie, if you can rationalize away the problem (it's all those pesky socialist countries! They're to blame!) then you don't have to consider the nastier alternative: that it's really US regulation that's at fault, and that the US *can* fix it, though it might get ugly (big pharma is an impressive force in Washington).
'course, that's starting to sound like socialism, and we all know that's just a slippery slope to communism and Stalinistic purges...
How can I have evidence for something which hasn't yet happened?
What? You claimed the US is subsidizing the rest of the world's drugs, and that that fact explains, to an extent, the sky-high cost of US healthcare. Here, let me quote you:
The counter-argument is that we shouldn't be subsidizing the world's health care anyhow
Now I'm asking you to prove it. So... go ahead. Stop simply asserting it and *prove it*.
If we currently spend almost $300 billion on prescription drugs in the US, and we cut this by 35% like Canada does... what do you think this will do to worldwide drug R&D budgets?
Very little if the money came out of their gargantuan advertising budgets, an easy thing to achieve if the government got some balls and outlawed direct-to-consumer advertising, along with the various perks they hand out to doctors and other caregivers. But we wouldn't want that, would we? God forbid a consumer get information about drugs from, you know... their *doctor*.
Honestly, take off the blinders. The US way is not, in fact, the only way, and another path does not, in fact, inevitably lead to socioeconomic destruction.
If, by "best", you mean "sluttiest, with biggest fat tits". *gag* Dibs out, thanks.
It isn't THAT bad over here...at the worst you see on any polls, about 70% of the people in the US LIKE what they have
And of that 70%, 90% have probably never even been outside the US, and have been so deeply indoctrinated in the presumption that a) the US does everything the best, and b) anything else is pinko communism, that they have absolutely no idea what their lives *could* be like.
In short: an average American claiming they "LIKE what they have" is akin to a born-blind man who's unable to comprehend what the big deal is about this whole "vision" thingy.
Basicly it takes 5 times the area to hold the same numebr of people - asume population was evenly spread (i know it isn't) it should cost 5 times as much to provide for the same number of people..
Wait... you make a supposition, debunk it yourself, then use it to come to a conclusion? Worse, the moderators mod you *up*??
Yes, the US has a much larger area. But, as you yourself pointed out, the population isn't evenly spread out. Rather, like any other developed nation, it's concentrated primarily in urban and suburban centers, where, you guessed it, the population densities are much higher. Given that, your conclusions seem highly suspect.
So you'd rather just blame Alberta? Please. While the conservatives have their strongest support here, they were voted for throughout Canada, and that includes Ontario. Turning this into an "east versus west" debate is the most petty kind of political bickering and brings absolutely nothing to the table.
So please, take your blind, idiotic regionalism and kindly shove it up your ass. And that goes for everyone, "easterners" and "westerners" alike.
No. Standard Unix commands have had a stable interface since before many of you were born.
Uh, so what? libc has been standardized for at least as long, and yet if glibc, the GNU implementation of the libc specification, were under the straight GPL, then anything linked against it would fall under the GPL.
In short: API has absolutely nothing to do with it. The question is, what is the definition of "combined work", and that goes right to the heart of the GPL (and has been a point of controversy every since it appeared).\
So far, we know that linking directly against a library, such that program A calls library function B, results in a combined work. The question before us is, if program A sends a TCP messages to program B, and program B calls library function C, while we admit that program B must fall under the GPL, must program A?
I think it's clear the answer *must* be 'no', as anything else would be ridiculous (last I checked, my web browser didn't inherit the license of the web application it was interacting with). In which case, the OP's point is very much valid.
It depends on the API. As far as I know, no one is patenting APIs.
Patenting? What? What the hell does that have to do with the GPL, which is a license on a *copyrighted* work?
Can you copyright an API such that a black box implementation can not be made without violating the copyright? I don't know.
You can't copyright an API at all. Furthermore, reverse engineering is legal for the purposes of achieving compatibilty. There is, after all, a reason why the PC actually exists in the form we see it to day: Compaq reverse engineering the API of the IBM BIOS.
The least they could do is update the calculator.. I mean, why can't I put in "2 pounds of chocolate in cups" and get an answer?
Because it's a stupid question. Is that liquid chocolate? Dry, shaved chocolate? And what type? Dark chocolate? Milk chocolate?
Here, I have a better solution for you: Get a kitchen scale. Seriously, it's a virtually required tool for any serious home cook. A decent one will only set you back $50 or so, and I guarantee will be worth every penny.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, Dia is a klunky, buggy piece of shit. Trying to do anything even slightly complicated in it (ER or UML diagrams, for example) results in ugly, brittle layouts (like relationship arity specifiers overlapping with the objects on either end of the relationship), and printing is an absolute joke (I have to *manually* set the page scaling in order to get my diagram to come out on a single page? Really??).
No, unfortunately Dia is a truly pale replacement for Visio. And, AFAIK, that isn't going to change any time soon: has one developer working on it part time (hell, the gap between 0.96 and 0.97 was *two years*).
A guy I work with is a Linux Fan. He's technically advanced.
No, he's really not. If he was even slightly competent, he'd know he could just right-click on the folder in Nautilus, select the Share tab, and click "Guest access". Alternatively, he could set up a user for you, and grant that user access to the folder.
Either way, your friend is clearly not as bright as you think he is.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, in addition to the requirements placed on registrants, CIRA also has a set of rules for registrars. Of interest is item 2.1:
So, not only did you violate the terms of the registrant agreement, but godaddy is also not doing their diligence to ensure they are enforcing the presence requirements. 'course, it may be that godaddy will eventually come around and revoke your registration... if not, it might be grounds for having them reported to CIRA.
I think, correct me if I am wrong, what you're saying is, by registering this domain, I agree to be bound by the CIRA?
Correct. Specifically, by registering a .ca domain, you are bound by CIRA's Registrant Agreement, which, among other things, includes the Canadian Presence Requirements. Violating those requirements will result in the cancellation of your domain name registration (assuming you're caught, of course... odds are Facebook would be).
My mistake, I meant to say "anti-gun control nuts", or simply "gun nuts". But I'm sure you, kind reader, already figured that out.
Funny how gun control nuts always pick on the UK, while firearms are similarly restricted in dozens of other countries, and yet they are arguably freer, safer nations than either the US or the UK.
Then again, I suppose it's human nature. It's a lot easier to cherry-pick facts and live in an echo chamber. Certainly it's far more comforting, as you never have to worry about being wrong...
I see what you're saying, but really, if I set up a website that is called SpeakingFrenchSucks.ca just to bash the French language, is that operating in Canada?
No, you've got it entirely backwards.
You *can't* register SpeakingFrenchSucks.ca *unless* you are "operating in Canada", as per the rules as set out by CIRA.
Last I checked, Facebook was a US company with no presence in Canada.
When was the last time you checked, exactly? And, yes, owning a .ca domain means they have a Canadian presence.
Of course Java is a dynamic duck-typed language as well. You just have to use the Reflection API.
Okay, I'm sorry, this is just getting fucking out of hand. If Java is "duck-typed", then the phrase "duck-typed" has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
Now, if Wikipedia is to be believed, "duck-typing" means writing code such that you don't care about types. You invoke methods on objects, and they either work or they don't because, at run time, everything is worked out for you (because duck-typed languages are inevitably dynamically typed and dispatched). But the key is *you don't care about types*. *Not* that you can use a convoluted reflection system to carefully wheedle out the types at run-time and get things to work by hand.
So no, I'm sorry, Java is *not* duck-typed. Moreover, that's *not* a bad thing. Dynamic typing is awfully nice in some scenarios, but it's no panacea. To see the other side of the coin, see Haskell, where types are everywhere, but thanks to type inference, you don't have to deal with them directly unless you want to. But, again, note, this is *not* duck-typing... if you try to invoke function X with argument A, and no definition exists for X(A), it'll tell you, and the compile will fail, while in a dynamically typed and dispatched language, you won't find out until the call fails are runtime.
And, as an aside, the fact that you can do away with inner classes isn't too terribly impressive given how absolutely useless they are. First class functions and lambdas, OTOH, now *those* are handy... pity Java *still* doesn't have them.
It's not the uncanny valley. It's just that it plain doesn't look anything like reality in the first place. The biggest culprit is the lighting, which pretty much no game has ever managed to get anywhere near right. I doubt anybody's even trying.
Need I point out that most movies don't have realistic lighting, either? Last I checked, the world wasn't filtered in green or blue, washed out in grays and beiges, or hyper saturated.
Question: Do a lot of people fall for your forkbomb?
Correct. And all those things are also wrong.
Creating an underclass of ex-cons who can no longer integrate effectively into society is a great way to ensure that criminals re-offend. Voting, in particular, is a right, not a privilege, and the government should never have the power to take that right away, ever (well, unless you like the idea of the government disenfranchising people based on the very laws they passed).
Yes I can. Pharma in 2006 made about $40 billion in profit. That's worldwide, and that includes non-prescription drugs. $100 billion - $40 billion = $60 billion that, by definition, is not "soaking" us. Also, they would move to protect profits, thus cutting spending.
See, that wasn't so hard, was it? :)
Incidentally, you seem to assume that the US is subsidizing R&D and other costs of operation. I would claim they aren't. Instead, I would say that the US, if it's subsidizing anything, it's subsidizing the very advertising/marketing that's being directed at US consumers. Force drug prices down, and I'm willing to bet the companies would cut costs on advertising (they already spend a relative pittance on R&D, ie 10-20% tops, so there's not much they can cut in that area).
A much better criticism of my initial statement, if you want to attack it, is that $100 billion isn't that big of a dent in our health care spending, which I believe is over $4 trillion. Indeed, adopting Canadian-style drug coverage would seem to only save us about 2.5%. So my statement that part of the reason the US spends more on health care because it is effectively subsidizing everyone else may be true, but the portion of our health care costs due to the "subsidy" is pretty low. We have much bigger issues than the cost of drugs.
Yes, certainly true. Though, it's worth noting that that 2.5% most likely disproportionately affects the middle- and lower-class, and the 40M insured, none of which can afford those sky-high drug costs.
Nevertheless, I suppose I should thank you for going back and refuting your own claim (that drug costs account for much of the US's ballooning healthcare costs). :)
Where, exactly, does my logic fail?
Fact: you still haven't actually provided evidence. No, a bunch of numbers tied together with baseless suppositions doesn't actually qualify.
In what way is that $100 billion not acting as a subsidy?
Because, until you can demonstrate that that $100 billion isn't just gravy, it looks to me like big pharma is just soaking US customers because they *can*, not because they *must*.
I think that's a bad idea. It used to be illegal, and so doctors were the arbiter. Doctors got so much free stuff that it seemed positively crooked.
What part of "[outlaw] ... the various perks they hand out to doctors and other caregivers" don't you understand? Honestly, other countries can do it (here in Canada, direct-to-consumer drug marketing is illegal, and we don't seem to have this bribary problem you fear), so why can't you?
The problem is that there is not a good replacement system in place for educating doctors about new medications.
Yes there is. It's called medical conferences, trade papers, and regular old fashioned leaflets. Informing doctors about new medications does not necessarily lead to bribary unless the US government allows it.
Honestly, do you *really* believe that doctors find out about the latest heart medications from commercials they spot on late-night TV? Please...
Second, you seem to think that I am against health care reform and you seem to be demonizing me.
Not at all. I just think you're barking up the wrong tree:
a) The supposition that the pharmaceutical industry overcharges US customers to cover costs of other nations is unsupported speculation,
b) The idea that the cost of drugs comes primarily from R&D is absurd,
c) The idea that the pharma industry can't be reformed and regulated in order to reduce healthcare costs is, at best, myopic.
Basically, you seem willing to simply accept, as a matter of course, the horrendous behaviour of big pharma, and would rather shift the blame for costs and so forth to other nations, presumably because it's easy. ie, if you can rationalize away the problem (it's all those pesky socialist countries! They're to blame!) then you don't have to consider the nastier alternative: that it's really US regulation that's at fault, and that the US *can* fix it, though it might get ugly (big pharma is an impressive force in Washington).
'course, that's starting to sound like socialism, and we all know that's just a slippery slope to communism and Stalinistic purges...
How can I have evidence for something which hasn't yet happened?
What? You claimed the US is subsidizing the rest of the world's drugs, and that that fact explains, to an extent, the sky-high cost of US healthcare. Here, let me quote you:
Now I'm asking you to prove it. So... go ahead. Stop simply asserting it and *prove it*.
Oh, and for the record: a thought experiment is not evidence. Thus, as yet, you *still* haven't actually supported your supposition.
Oh no... could it be that you *have* no evidence?
If we currently spend almost $300 billion on prescription drugs in the US, and we cut this by 35% like Canada does... what do you think this will do to worldwide drug R&D budgets?
Very little if the money came out of their gargantuan advertising budgets, an easy thing to achieve if the government got some balls and outlawed direct-to-consumer advertising, along with the various perks they hand out to doctors and other caregivers. But we wouldn't want that, would we? God forbid a consumer get information about drugs from, you know... their *doctor*.
Honestly, take off the blinders. The US way is not, in fact, the only way, and another path does not, in fact, inevitably lead to socioeconomic destruction.
The counter-argument is that we shouldn't be subsidizing the world's health care anyhow...
Uh, you *do* realize you still haven't backed that claim up, right?
LOL, w e a k... s/fat/fake/
How I wish Slashdot had a one-time option to fix posts. *sigh*
The best looking pr0n chicks!!
If, by "best", you mean "sluttiest, with biggest fat tits". *gag* Dibs out, thanks.
It isn't THAT bad over here...at the worst you see on any polls, about 70% of the people in the US LIKE what they have
And of that 70%, 90% have probably never even been outside the US, and have been so deeply indoctrinated in the presumption that a) the US does everything the best, and b) anything else is pinko communism, that they have absolutely no idea what their lives *could* be like.
In short: an average American claiming they "LIKE what they have" is akin to a born-blind man who's unable to comprehend what the big deal is about this whole "vision" thingy.
Basicly it takes 5 times the area to hold the same numebr of people - asume population was evenly spread (i know it isn't) it should cost 5 times as much to provide for the same number of people..
Wait... you make a supposition, debunk it yourself, then use it to come to a conclusion? Worse, the moderators mod you *up*??
Yes, the US has a much larger area. But, as you yourself pointed out, the population isn't evenly spread out. Rather, like any other developed nation, it's concentrated primarily in urban and suburban centers, where, you guessed it, the population densities are much higher. Given that, your conclusions seem highly suspect.
There's no need to blame the Americans.
So you'd rather just blame Alberta? Please. While the conservatives have their strongest support here, they were voted for throughout Canada, and that includes Ontario. Turning this into an "east versus west" debate is the most petty kind of political bickering and brings absolutely nothing to the table.
So please, take your blind, idiotic regionalism and kindly shove it up your ass. And that goes for everyone, "easterners" and "westerners" alike.
No. Standard Unix commands have had a stable interface since before many of you were born.
Uh, so what? libc has been standardized for at least as long, and yet if glibc, the GNU implementation of the libc specification, were under the straight GPL, then anything linked against it would fall under the GPL.
In short: API has absolutely nothing to do with it. The question is, what is the definition of "combined work", and that goes right to the heart of the GPL (and has been a point of controversy every since it appeared).\
So far, we know that linking directly against a library, such that program A calls library function B, results in a combined work. The question before us is, if program A sends a TCP messages to program B, and program B calls library function C, while we admit that program B must fall under the GPL, must program A?
I think it's clear the answer *must* be 'no', as anything else would be ridiculous (last I checked, my web browser didn't inherit the license of the web application it was interacting with). In which case, the OP's point is very much valid.
It depends on the API. As far as I know, no one is patenting APIs.
Patenting? What? What the hell does that have to do with the GPL, which is a license on a *copyrighted* work?
Can you copyright an API such that a black box implementation can not be made without violating the copyright? I don't know.
You can't copyright an API at all. Furthermore, reverse engineering is legal for the purposes of achieving compatibilty. There is, after all, a reason why the PC actually exists in the form we see it to day: Compaq reverse engineering the API of the IBM BIOS.
The least they could do is update the calculator.. I mean, why can't I put in "2 pounds of chocolate in cups" and get an answer?
Because it's a stupid question. Is that liquid chocolate? Dry, shaved chocolate? And what type? Dark chocolate? Milk chocolate?
Here, I have a better solution for you: Get a kitchen scale. Seriously, it's a virtually required tool for any serious home cook. A decent one will only set you back $50 or so, and I guarantee will be worth every penny.