This article refers to something called KDD.
Knowledge Discovery in Databases [KDD] - as his counterpart Knowledge Discovery in Texts [KDT] - is a whole field of computer sciences. It's been around for more than 20 years now. The ACM even has a Special Interest Group : ACM-SIGKDD.
For an introduction you should read: _Introduction to Machine Learning_ (Kodratoff, Yves; Morgan Kaufmann Pub; 1988) or for a more recent and complete survey: _Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining_ (Fayaad, Usama; AAAI/MIT Press; 1996).
Back in November 2001, when RMS was candidate to the GNOME Board of Directors, there was a discussion on/. about the reasons why he applied.
Just a couple days before, he had said during a conference in Paris that his primary reason to apply to the board was to support cooperation between GNOME and KDE (see my post), eventhough it wasn't clearly stated in his answers to the GNOME board candidacy questionnaire.
I'm really happy to see that it was not only electoral bulls**t.
Maybe he is the last person you could have think of for such a task (especially knowing his position toward the KDE team in the old days of the QPL), but here he comes with this simple (as in not heavily political) practical (as in usefull) first step... so let's try !
No TV tonight for a lot of european geeks
on
New Years Marathons
·
· Score: 1
Tonight is the final countdown for the euro, so no TV allowed. It's an Y2K replay in Europe...
Me tink a lot of geeks are working like me tonight.
All was prepared, but the final switch has to be done tonight in some part of the financial industry.
But when it'll be done (2PM or something), I think we'll be drunk like everyone else.;-)
I had a dinner with RMS last week in Paris. When I asked him that very question (why he was running for Gnome Board of Directors), he said that the first reason was to help improving the coperation with the KDE development team. He spoke of the duplicate development effort in the desktop area and he even made a parallel with the gnu-emacs vs x-emacs debate (just a couple days after he took the lead back in gnu-emacs!!!).
I cannot understand why KDE is not even cited in this response. Is this only electoral bulls**t ?
They definitely don't care about Konqueror :
I bet Konqueror has access only because his user-agent string contain somewhere the substring "Netscape6/6.5". See my previous post in this topic.
1. requiring MSIE users to upgrade to version 4 or above
"Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; MSIE 3.0; anything)"
DONT WORK
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; anything)"
WORK
2. specifically barring browsers "masquerading" as MSIE (such as Opera)
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; anything) Opara 5.12"
WORK
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; anything) Opera 5.12"
DONT WORK
3. restricting access only to some specific other browsers (such as some versions of Netscape)
"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686; en-US; m18) Gecko/20010110 Netscape6/6.5"
WORK
"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686; en-US; m18) Gecko/20010110 Netscope6/6.5"
DONT WORK
"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686; en-US; m18) Gecko/20010110 Netscape6.5"
DONT WORK
It's definitely thought and done on purpose...
It does [was:so...]
on
GNU Emacs 21
·
· Score: 3, Funny
coffee.el allows Emacs users to submit a
BREW request to an RFC2324-compliant coffee
device (Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol, or
HTCPCP). It prompts the user for the different additives, then issues a
HTCPCP BREW request to the coffee device.
Smartcards were already in use in some european countries in the early eighties (i had my first smart-credit-card in 1983). The first patents were issued in France in the late seventies (Michel Ugon/Bull CP8 and Roland Moreno/Innovatron).
80% of the smartcards used in cellphones and credit cards all over the world were producted by european companies (mostly french) such as Gemplus, Bull or Schlumberger (letting Delarue apart), based on european patents.
Tamper resistant devices such as smartcards are not easy to design and to manufacture correctly.
Attacks such as DPMA (based on the electric power used by the card while performing operations) is VERY difficult to circumvent.
If only Hugues had bought their smartcards from one of the companies which had a real experience in making smartcards instead of trying to re-invent it themselves... But the american "Not Invented Here" syndrome prevent them to even think of it.
As the UML v1.1 was released (Sept. 97), software engineers thought that it was the end of the "yet another methodology" syndrome. I'm sad to say that it was false. Instead of it, we have now a "yet another book about the UML" syndrome, and it is worse: It was easy to say: "I'm using the foo methodology" (Booch, OMT, Objectory, Coad&Yourdon, Shlaer&Mellor, Martin&Odell...). It is now very difficult to explain: "I'm using the UML notation (as the UML is only a notation and not a method[ology]) with the foo development process (Coad's Feature Driven Process, Rational "Unified" Process, CISI Process...)". The main problem is: each author uses the UML notation in his own way, especially the methodologists who jumped lately in the UML bandwagon. They cannot agree even on the use of the core concepts of the UML.
Fortunately, the Software Process Engineering Management Request For Proposition of the OMG and the UML Profiles mechanisms (see this OMG white paper ) should address this concern: It should allow to describe a development process in a little more rigorous way than the current informality and to precise the particular usage of each construct of the UML notation (or extensions of this core notation) in the context of a given development process.
A book exposing Coad's point of view on the UML will be a "good thing"(tm) only when we'll have such conceptual tools at our disposal. Before this moment, it only adds to the confusion of the newcomers to the UML.
I approached this book looking for something that would teach me about patterns
Concerning the patterns, I think that the "Design Patterns" book (ISBN: 0-201-63361-2) of the so-called "Gang of Four" (Gamma, Helm, Johnson & Vlissides) is still the best book about patterns you can read. Each pattern is described by an OMT class diagram and C++ code but the translation into UML and Java is mostly straightforward.
Slashdot Mirror
This article refers to something called KDD. Knowledge Discovery in Databases [KDD] - as his counterpart Knowledge Discovery in Texts [KDT] - is a whole field of computer sciences. It's been around for more than 20 years now. The ACM even has a Special Interest Group : ACM-SIGKDD.
For an introduction you should read: _Introduction to Machine Learning_ (Kodratoff, Yves; Morgan Kaufmann Pub; 1988) or for a more recent and complete survey: _Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining_ (Fayaad, Usama; AAAI/MIT Press; 1996).
Back in November 2001, when RMS was candidate to the GNOME Board of Directors, there was a discussion on /. about the reasons why he applied.
Just a couple days before, he had said during a conference in Paris that his primary reason to apply to the board was to support cooperation between GNOME and KDE (see my post), eventhough it wasn't clearly stated in his answers to the GNOME board candidacy questionnaire.
I'm really happy to see that it was not only electoral bulls**t.
Maybe he is the last person you could have think of for such a task (especially knowing his position toward the KDE team in the old days of the QPL), but here he comes with this simple (as in not heavily political) practical (as in usefull) first step... so let's try !
Tonight is the final countdown for the euro, so no TV allowed. It's an Y2K replay in Europe... ;-)
Me tink a lot of geeks are working like me tonight.
All was prepared, but the final switch has to be done tonight in some part of the financial industry.
But when it'll be done (2PM or something), I think we'll be drunk like everyone else.
Happy new year to all of you.
- KDE meets his definition of free software
- his primary reason to apply to the board is to support cooperation between GNOME and KDE
As I wrote before, I was so surprised I asked him again during the dinner after the conference. He confirmed twice.I had a dinner with RMS last week in Paris. When I asked him that very question (why he was running for Gnome Board of Directors), he said that the first reason was to help improving the coperation with the KDE development team. He spoke of the duplicate development effort in the desktop area and he even made a parallel with the gnu-emacs vs x-emacs debate (just a couple days after he took the lead back in gnu-emacs!!!).
I cannot understand why KDE is not even cited in this response. Is this only electoral bulls**t ?
They definitely don't care about Konqueror : I bet Konqueror has access only because his user-agent string contain somewhere the substring "Netscape6/6.5". See my previous post in this topic.
1. requiring MSIE users to upgrade to version 4 or above
"Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; MSIE 3.0; anything)"
DONT WORK
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; anything)"
WORK
2. specifically barring browsers "masquerading" as MSIE (such as Opera)
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; anything) Opara 5.12"
WORK
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; anything) Opera 5.12"
DONT WORK
3. restricting access only to some specific other browsers (such as some versions of Netscape)
"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686; en-US; m18) Gecko/20010110 Netscape6/6.5"
WORK
"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686; en-US; m18) Gecko/20010110 Netscope6/6.5"
DONT WORK
"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686; en-US; m18) Gecko/20010110 Netscape6.5"
DONT WORK
It's definitely thought and done on purpose...
coffee.el allows Emacs users to submit a BREW request to an RFC2324-compliant coffee device (Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol, or HTCPCP). It prompts the user for the different additives, then issues a HTCPCP BREW request to the coffee device.
Smartcards were already in use in some european countries in the early eighties (i had my first smart-credit-card in 1983). The first patents were issued in France in the late seventies (Michel Ugon/Bull CP8 and Roland Moreno/Innovatron).
80% of the smartcards used in cellphones and credit cards all over the world were producted by european companies (mostly french) such as Gemplus, Bull or Schlumberger (letting Delarue apart), based on european patents.
Tamper resistant devices such as smartcards are not easy to design and to manufacture correctly.
Attacks such as DPMA (based on the electric power used by the card while performing operations) is VERY difficult to circumvent.
If only Hugues had bought their smartcards from one of the companies which had a real experience in making smartcards instead of trying to re-invent it themselves... But the american "Not Invented Here" syndrome prevent them to even think of it.
I'm so surprised there cards were cracked.
Instead of it, we have now a "yet another book about the UML" syndrome, and it is worse: It was easy to say: "I'm using the foo methodology" (Booch, OMT, Objectory, Coad&Yourdon, Shlaer&Mellor, Martin&Odell...). It is now very difficult to explain: "I'm using the UML notation (as the UML is only a notation and not a method[ology]) with the foo development process (Coad's Feature Driven Process, Rational "Unified" Process, CISI Process...)".
The main problem is: each author uses the UML notation in his own way, especially the methodologists who jumped lately in the UML bandwagon. They cannot agree even on the use of the core concepts of the UML.
Fortunately, the Software Process Engineering Management Request For Proposition of the OMG and the UML Profiles mechanisms (see this OMG white paper ) should address this concern: It should allow to describe a development process in a little more rigorous way than the current informality and to precise the particular usage of each construct of the UML notation (or extensions of this core notation) in the context of a given development process.
A book exposing Coad's point of view on the UML will be a "good thing"(tm) only when we'll have such conceptual tools at our disposal. Before this moment, it only adds to the confusion of the newcomers to the UML.
Concerning the patterns, I think that the "Design Patterns" book (ISBN: 0-201-63361-2) of the so-called "Gang of Four" (Gamma, Helm, Johnson & Vlissides) is still the best book about patterns you can read. Each pattern is described by an OMT class diagram and C++ code but the translation into UML and Java is mostly straightforward.