If you're right about Nietzsche, perhaps FORTH would make more sense. Lisps are dynamically typed, but FORTH is truly typeless and much less conventional.
Yeah, I've heard good things about PowerShell, though I haven't had an opportunity to use it. Perhaps I will if I need to do some scripting on Windows. OTOH, I generally prefer Python, which runs on a very wide variety of platforms, and gives full access to the underlying system in a portable way.
Although Bash (as well as other *nix shells) is great for interactive commands and short scripts, it's a terrible programming language, so I generally switch to Python when a script exceeds about a page.
Since you seem determined both to dodge my question and put words in my mouth, I'll call you by the one label that is clearly applicable: liar. Here is the exact text of my post, unabridged and un-paraphrased:
I will spell it out for you, Rat, in excruciating detail, starting with your statement:
Yes, you might have to buy a *gasp* non-free license for your free OS, but guess what? If you want users, that's the tradeoff-- welcome to the real world. (If you don't want users, then stay the course.)
I have Ubuntu installed on a machine I put together. I want to play encrypted DVDs that I paid money for in legitimate retail establishments, but I live in the US, land of the DMCA. How do I accomplish my goal without potentially breaking any laws?
If you're being intentionally dense, you might miss that the fact that I am not running Linspire (though I certainly have heard of it, contrary to your baseless accusations). It might also slip past you that I didn't buy a Dell machine with Ubuntu pre-installed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are stating that the only options for watching encrypted DVDs on a desktop computer running a Linux-based operating system that avoid all potential legal pitfalls are (1) to use Linspire or (2) buy a Dell machine with Ubuntu pre-installed. I already knew this was the case, but I want to hear you say it.
I won't stoop to insulting you, but I will point out that you still haven't answered my extremely clear question. I must conclude that you're intentionally dodging it.
I suspect that most people use a CLI with Unix/Linux because these OS's are really designed around it, not because they are trying to learn more about computers.
First, do you think most people try the CLI on *nix because they have to or because they want to try or learn something new? Second, using Ubuntu (and most likely other current Desktop-oriented distros) on machines where the hardware all works out of the box (which is a lot of machines these days) a brand new user wouldn't have to use a CLI any more than he would on Windows. However, if he did try opening a terminal window, he'd find it much friendlier and more powerful than built-in Windows equivalents. The same is true of OSX.
So, both historical and current realities make it more likely for someone to use a CLI on *nix than on Windows.
I would need at least 5 VT100s to be as productive as with a modern X11 desktop. Even then, I still wouldn't have graphical web browsers or any of the many GUI apps I use all the time. When I have to use Windows, I also use a mix of GUI and terminal apps.
The vast majority of people that use computers today use Windows at least some of the time, just because of market realities. The people that are familiar with another environment are likely to have some familiarity with Windows. However, the typical Windows user knows nothing else. More varied knowledge and experience has inherent value. It's similar to how though English is increasingly the most important language to know worldwide, knowing only English is not necessarily an advantage.
Similarly, while knowing a CLI does not automatically make one more knowledgeable, those that use CLIs today generally learned because they were motivated to go beyond the typical GUI usage. So, it wouldn't be unreasonable to guess that someone who uses a CLI is more knowledgeable than average about computers in general.
I will spell it out for you, Rat, in excruciating detail, starting with your statement:
Yes, you might have to buy a *gasp* non-free license for your free OS, but guess what? If you want users, that's the tradeoff-- welcome to the real world. (If you don't want users, then stay the course.)
I have Ubuntu installed on a machine I put together. I want to play encrypted DVDs that I paid money for in legitimate retail establishments, but I live in the US, land of the DMCA. How do I accomplish my goal without potentially breaking any laws?
If you're arguing that people should learn the Microsoft machine because they control the industry, then you're part of the problem, so I'll take your insult as an indication that I'm doing something right. While it might make sense for an individual to take a "free" voucher from Microsoft because they need to learn Microsoft products for potential jobs, a government supporting Microsoft's dominance isn't good for anyone in the long run.
Yeah, now that I think about it, I was wrong. Training from Microsoft is the best way to learn to use word processors and spreadsheets.They did invent them after all.
Exactly which non-free license are you referring to? Are you implying that there's a way to pay for a way to watch DVDs on your desktop running Ubuntu in a way that doesn't make the DVD Forum cry? BTW, I don't think buying a brand new machine from Dell would be a viable option for many.
Yeah, you're right. All GNU/Linux users use command-line interfaces and manipulate strings with sed and awk. Mere mortals should be confined to the Microsoft sandbox. They could never be expected to be productive with anything but the quality products from Redmond.
You sound very knowledgeable, but are apparently too lazy to RTFA, so I'll quote it for you:
There were pressure spikes during the accident that would have cracked an average containment vessel, releasing radioactive gases into the atmosphere. Fortunately the Unit 2 containment wasn't average. TMI-2 was built on the final approach path to Harrisburg International Airport, a former U.S. Air Force base, and was therefore beefed-up specifically to withstand the impact of a B-52 hitting the structure at 200 knots. A normal containment would have been breached.
The information about the relative strength of the containment vessel came from TFA:
There were pressure spikes during the accident that would have cracked an average containment vessel, releasing radioactive gases into the atmosphere. Fortunately the Unit 2 containment wasn't average. TMI-2 was built on the final approach path to Harrisburg International Airport, a former U.S. Air Force base, and was therefore beefed-up specifically to withstand the impact of a B-52 hitting the structure at 200 knots. A normal containment would have been breached.
If you read the article, you'd realize it was a very significant wake up call. Death was narrowly avoided because the reactor containment vessel was over-engineered compared to the typical design. The tragedy is that the lesson the public learned was that nuclear power was too dangerous to use at all, when the reality was that it was poorly designed and mismanaged.
If you want ambiguous conversations, by all means, use ambiguous terms, but that ambiguity does impede this particular discussion. In relevance to this particular discussion, which "Assembler" is not based on English?
"Assembler" is not a language, but a software tool that operates on an assembly language. There is not a language called "Assembly," but a distinct assembly language exists for at least each CPU architecture. Many (most?) assembly languages use mnemonics that are simply abbreviated English words or phrases (MOV, jmpl, ADD, CALL).
In all seriousness, most of the English I come across is declarative, so it's definitely not procedural. Instructions (such as a recipe or algorithm) are imperative and/or procedural. You could probably call an English description of a mathematical function "functional," but "object oriented" probably doesn't make any sense to apply to English, except in the original sense of talking about objects in the real world.
By the way, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works was the first international agreement that tied copyright terms to the life of the author. In 1886, the term of a copyright in the US was 14 years, renewable once for a maximum of 28 years. It was the Copyright Act of 1976, 90 years after Berne, when things seemed to be getting out of hand in the US. Copyright terms can last as long as 120 years or 70 years beyond the death of the creator now. This is quite simply corporate greed. It wasn't until 1989 that the US agreed to the Berne Convention.
Even before the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, copyrights lasted 50 years beyond the death of the creator in Australia. I think both the US and Australia are part of a global trend dominated by corporate greed, though the US seems to be ahead.
Because of their age, all musical compositions from the Classical Period have fallen into the public domain. There are therefore no legal restrictions on performing or deriving from such compositions. However, the term Classical Music has a number of meanings, the broadest of which could include some music composed today. However, the issue of royalties for playing a radio station has nothing to do with the copyright on the composition, but only the performance and copyright on the recording of that performance.
I couldn't agree with you more. It's NAT that breaks the Internet, not applications that are broken. There are many complex and ugly hacks application protocols have to employ to get around the fundamental brokenness of NAT. Then Internet was designed as a peer to peer network, but the prevalence of NAT is a great obstruction to that ideal.
Though there are real technical difficulties impeding IPv6 adoption, I suspect ISPs are also dragging their feet adopting IPv6 because they will no longer be able to charge inflated prices for additional addresses and a move back toward the original peer to peer nature of the Internet would give power back to individuals and take it away from them. Or maybe I'm just paranoid.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're right about Nietzsche, perhaps FORTH would make more sense. Lisps are dynamically typed, but FORTH is truly typeless and much less conventional.
Yeah, I've heard good things about PowerShell, though I haven't had an opportunity to use it. Perhaps I will if I need to do some scripting on Windows. OTOH, I generally prefer Python, which runs on a very wide variety of platforms, and gives full access to the underlying system in a portable way.
Although Bash (as well as other *nix shells) is great for interactive commands and short scripts, it's a terrible programming language, so I generally switch to Python when a script exceeds about a page.
Since you seem determined both to dodge my question and put words in my mouth, I'll call you by the one label that is clearly applicable: liar. Here is the exact text of my post, unabridged and un-paraphrased:
If you're being intentionally dense, you might miss that the fact that I am not running Linspire (though I certainly have heard of it, contrary to your baseless accusations). It might also slip past you that I didn't buy a Dell machine with Ubuntu pre-installed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are stating that the only options for watching encrypted DVDs on a desktop computer running a Linux-based operating system that avoid all potential legal pitfalls are (1) to use Linspire or (2) buy a Dell machine with Ubuntu pre-installed. I already knew this was the case, but I want to hear you say it.
I won't stoop to insulting you, but I will point out that you still haven't answered my extremely clear question. I must conclude that you're intentionally dodging it.
Yes, you're probably right.
First, do you think most people try the CLI on *nix because they have to or because they want to try or learn something new? Second, using Ubuntu (and most likely other current Desktop-oriented distros) on machines where the hardware all works out of the box (which is a lot of machines these days) a brand new user wouldn't have to use a CLI any more than he would on Windows. However, if he did try opening a terminal window, he'd find it much friendlier and more powerful than built-in Windows equivalents. The same is true of OSX.
So, both historical and current realities make it more likely for someone to use a CLI on *nix than on Windows.
I would need at least 5 VT100s to be as productive as with a modern X11 desktop. Even then, I still wouldn't have graphical web browsers or any of the many GUI apps I use all the time. When I have to use Windows, I also use a mix of GUI and terminal apps.
The vast majority of people that use computers today use Windows at least some of the time, just because of market realities. The people that are familiar with another environment are likely to have some familiarity with Windows. However, the typical Windows user knows nothing else. More varied knowledge and experience has inherent value. It's similar to how though English is increasingly the most important language to know worldwide, knowing only English is not necessarily an advantage.
Similarly, while knowing a CLI does not automatically make one more knowledgeable, those that use CLIs today generally learned because they were motivated to go beyond the typical GUI usage. So, it wouldn't be unreasonable to guess that someone who uses a CLI is more knowledgeable than average about computers in general.
Do you have any links, or are you just committed to slinging insults?
I will spell it out for you, Rat, in excruciating detail, starting with your statement:
Yes, you might have to buy a *gasp* non-free license for your free OS, but guess what? If you want users, that's the tradeoff-- welcome to the real world. (If you don't want users, then stay the course.)
I have Ubuntu installed on a machine I put together. I want to play encrypted DVDs that I paid money for in legitimate retail establishments, but I live in the US, land of the DMCA. How do I accomplish my goal without potentially breaking any laws?
If you're arguing that people should learn the Microsoft machine because they control the industry, then you're part of the problem, so I'll take your insult as an indication that I'm doing something right. While it might make sense for an individual to take a "free" voucher from Microsoft because they need to learn Microsoft products for potential jobs, a government supporting Microsoft's dominance isn't good for anyone in the long run.
Thank you for supporting my point.
Yeah, now that I think about it, I was wrong. Training from Microsoft is the best way to learn to use word processors and spreadsheets.They did invent them after all.
Exactly which non-free license are you referring to? Are you implying that there's a way to pay for a way to watch DVDs on your desktop running Ubuntu in a way that doesn't make the DVD Forum cry? BTW, I don't think buying a brand new machine from Dell would be a viable option for many.
Yeah, you're right. All GNU/Linux users use command-line interfaces and manipulate strings with sed and awk. Mere mortals should be confined to the Microsoft sandbox. They could never be expected to be productive with anything but the quality products from Redmond.
Don't forget to pay the royalty for each copy of your H.264 someone downloads, regardless of the method. The end user won't be paying for that.
I think you're confusing BadAnalogyGuy with MixedMetaphorGuy.
You sound very knowledgeable, but are apparently too lazy to RTFA, so I'll quote it for you:
The information about the relative strength of the containment vessel came from TFA:
Of course, Bob could be wrong.
If you read the article, you'd realize it was a very significant wake up call. Death was narrowly avoided because the reactor containment vessel was over-engineered compared to the typical design. The tragedy is that the lesson the public learned was that nuclear power was too dangerous to use at all, when the reality was that it was poorly designed and mismanaged.
If you want ambiguous conversations, by all means, use ambiguous terms, but that ambiguity does impede this particular discussion. In relevance to this particular discussion, which "Assembler" is not based on English?
"Assembler" is not a language, but a software tool that operates on an assembly language. There is not a language called "Assembly," but a distinct assembly language exists for at least each CPU architecture. Many (most?) assembly languages use mnemonics that are simply abbreviated English words or phrases (MOV, jmpl, ADD, CALL).
In all seriousness, most of the English I come across is declarative, so it's definitely not procedural. Instructions (such as a recipe or algorithm) are imperative and/or procedural. You could probably call an English description of a mathematical function "functional," but "object oriented" probably doesn't make any sense to apply to English, except in the original sense of talking about objects in the real world.
By the way, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works was the first international agreement that tied copyright terms to the life of the author. In 1886, the term of a copyright in the US was 14 years, renewable once for a maximum of 28 years. It was the Copyright Act of 1976, 90 years after Berne, when things seemed to be getting out of hand in the US. Copyright terms can last as long as 120 years or 70 years beyond the death of the creator now. This is quite simply corporate greed. It wasn't until 1989 that the US agreed to the Berne Convention.
Even before the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, copyrights lasted 50 years beyond the death of the creator in Australia. I think both the US and Australia are part of a global trend dominated by corporate greed, though the US seems to be ahead.
Because of their age, all musical compositions from the Classical Period have fallen into the public domain. There are therefore no legal restrictions on performing or deriving from such compositions. However, the term Classical Music has a number of meanings, the broadest of which could include some music composed today. However, the issue of royalties for playing a radio station has nothing to do with the copyright on the composition, but only the performance and copyright on the recording of that performance.
I couldn't agree with you more. It's NAT that breaks the Internet, not applications that are broken. There are many complex and ugly hacks application protocols have to employ to get around the fundamental brokenness of NAT. Then Internet was designed as a peer to peer network, but the prevalence of NAT is a great obstruction to that ideal.
Though there are real technical difficulties impeding IPv6 adoption, I suspect ISPs are also dragging their feet adopting IPv6 because they will no longer be able to charge inflated prices for additional addresses and a move back toward the original peer to peer nature of the Internet would give power back to individuals and take it away from them. Or maybe I'm just paranoid.