This shows that science is just a mass of arbitrary assertions. This abject, craven, flip flopping about face allows me to justifiably substitute my own preferred notions into the debate as fact. This effectively proves that global warming, vaccination, evolution, and all other liberal plots are bald faced lies.
Its an outrage! If scientists can revise their theories based on improved evidence, science is untrustworthy claptrap that must be excluded from debate.
Don't be ridiculous. "All Turing complete languages are Turing complete" is not an argument, its a tautology. The question is how easily a concept can be expressed and reasoned about. By your logic, because diophantine equations can encode a lisp interpreter, they are a reasonable way to implement... anything. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.6.7628&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Maybe because its a slow, me-too, mashed together dynamic language rather than a cohesive, statically typed language, designed in a peer reviewed environment with modularity, performance, safety, concurrency, and expressivity in mind?
Your claim is that paying for a patent licence in "merely aggregated" software results in being unable to distribute any software under the GPL. In the cases you state - Fraunhofer & Dolby, the patent licenced software is in userspace, which is a clear "mere aggregation" boundary set out by major copyright holders. Seperate processes, or running your code in a chip, are also pretty much watertight boundaries. And almost certainly other "not quite" process things like running a bit of firmware in kernel space is very very unlikely to be found to be a derived work of the kernel and thus have any effect on this... so, unless tivo are idiotic enough to do codecs in a kernel module rather than in hardware or in userspace, it doesn't matter.
This case is different, it is about patent violations *in* a particular bit of GPL'ed software, ie FAT in the kernel. And no, I'm not a GPL zealot, I find it incredibly irritating in a huge number of situations - basically the point at which a project grows up and realises it wants to be a platform or library, and then has to go through a relicencing nightmare. I would never make new code GPL'd, unless its on a project that can't possibly relicence.
However I do get tired of people claiming to have found fatal flaws in the GPL : the aim I think is wrong, but take some time to understand that the implementation is solid.
The legal coward solution to this is to use a fuse implementation of vfat, and pay the ridiculous MS tithe. This way you don't impact on the GPL licence you were granted for the kernel.
The problem is the attitude that the vast majority of indian programmers have.
1. They can never be wrong, or hav e made a mistake. 2. They deny reality - ie everything is always going fine, until its blatantly clear that its not, and even then its somehow still ok, if you ignore the reality that the system was meant to work. 3. Its impossible to know whether they actually understand what you said. Because they will always claim to have understood, you literally have to quiz them in detail, which can be very tedous.. 4. They can't bear to disappoint someone, even when they should. I've had programmers impersonate each other on the phone, just to avoid admitting that they weren't there. But its such a half assed job that they don't even tell the other guy that they impersonated them.
Any halfway decent indians move to the UK, US and Europe *very* quickly. Also, I've seen *plenty* of utterly shit programmers from IITs. The vast majority of "successful" indian outsourcing I've seen has consisted of ~20 indian programmers producing reams of shit, and then their UK based "boss" rewriting the lot and getting a pat on the back for making outsourcing work.
Now Eastern Europeans are arrogant fucks who find it very hard to admit they are wrong as well. They do have a good sense of doom however, which makes them far less likley to lie about the state of their projects. In general they are hugely better than indians.
This is all cultural - its shocking how much more angry a westernised ( can admit mistakes, doesn't have to be percieved as omniscient) will get at working with the standard dross. I've never heard of these kinds of cultural traits being engineered in or out of a society, but I seriously hope it can be done for Indias sake. Unfortunately, this would involve facing reality and admitting they have a problem....
I'd love to know your definition of a non editable file...
The only thing that *should* be legally permissable is something signed with your private key. Now, who on earth is going to sign mp3s with their private key before sticking them on a p2p network, or give their private key to Apple so they can do it... oh wait.
Its a point about the politics of the thing - nothing to do with the practicality. MS will never require a piece of hardware that laptops can't have built in to be a "genuine" windows machine, and no game dev will spend their own money ( rather than a hardware manufacturers VC money ) on supporting a peripheral that is not required.
There is no economic sense in a game developer using this. Until Microsoft mandates that a bit of hardware is required for a "Genuine" windows machine, it will not factor in to any rational developers plans. And in this case its never going to happen, because it notionally excludes laptops, and no matter how painful it is in reality to play a mouse and keyboard game on a touchpad, its still "possible".
Anyway, MS want PC gaming dead just as much as everybody else now that X360 has been a relative success: any hardware innovation has to come from single source manufacturers, and in reality that means console manufacturers - and only Nintendo actually wants to even try - and Apple. All the clone makers just like to cower in a corner and pray for a behemoth like Intel, MS, or Google to innovate for them...
Its sad really, that the 80's with myriad incompatible silos of innovation seem so bright nowadays...
You are a dunce. Cisco is the copyright holder, they are not bound by the terms of a licence they grant to other legal entities, no matter how that grant was brought about.
If you hunker down and squint at it the right way, COME FROM is really an early form of aspect oriented programming - non local transfer of control to the point of definition - yeah, yeah CLOS fans we know that real generic functions subsume AOP and date from the mists of the 80s - but this is from the early 70s so it is pretty interesting. Over application of hyped technologies for the win!
This is fairly naive. On Linux and other free unices, any privilege escalation holes are considered bugs and will be fixed in a reasonable time frame. This is not the case on windows. I would like to believe it is the case on OSX but I'm unconvinced (posting from OSX). I have to admit I don't know why web browsers aren't by default run under a subservient user account (with saved downloads handed off to a much more easily audited process)... but anyway - the conceit that all end user platforms are equivalently easy to attack is clearly bogus. "super simple" my arse.
Sorry, but as someone in the UK who is not much younger than yourself, I feel qualified to say you are talking utter rubbish. And why? To shirk a claim of exaggeration?
Very nearly no native in the UK uses cm to measure their waist size or height, or kg for their own weight. When talking about how much weight you do at the gym, or even how much an arbitrary object weighs, probably. But not your own weight.
No one over 50 *EVER* uses centigrade for the temperature except for setting the oven. Nobody.
I.e. what's 5 pounds added to 2 stone? I have absolutely no idea. But 500 grams added to 2 kilos is easy.
I'll assume you picked a bad example of the top of your head here, but this statement really just makes you look silly.... I prefer the metric system too. But truth wins over beauty, and fibbing about the UK really helps nobody.
We are not talking about your own oddball practices here, but what average people actually do.
Erm... you have a truly unique talent for missing the point. My "best solution" was intended as a "this is NEVER going to happen" alternative. It is quite sad that you've wasted so much time attacking an opinion that no one professes to hold. To make it simple for you - I think it is very nearly impossible to hire a sufficient number of competent programmers for *any* project, mainly because the testing of competence in programming is incredibly expensive, and competent programmers are INCREDIBLY rare. So you have to accept that up front. You can couch this in management terms if it makes you feel better paid.
Restating every argument as a variation of "which is a stuck up way of saying " also makes you look like a bit of a loon. Having technical knowledge and opinions is not, in fact, "stuck up". Argue on the level of the discussion, rather than just spouting management text book garbage.
Er, yeah. My point was, when someone contrasts Qt and OpenStep, all the "big" advantages are mainly just not having to deal with people getting into a mess with C++ ( in which it is easy to express some very neat abstractions, and ridiculously hard to express others - but this is not the way to judge a language you are choosing for other people).
If you really look at ObjC objectively, it is kind of disgusting. Don't get me wrong, it is usable, and will "normally" get muppets in to less trouble than C++, but it is C with bolt on bits of smalltalk syntax, and a very odd type system. And the tool support is quite, quite tragic.
No, I really mean what I said. Most people programming do not understand the basics of what they are doing. They have a huge problem grasping concepts if they can not envisage in their minds directly how the code they are writing will be evaluated, and they have a very limited understanding of possible computational evaluation models. So they work at a very very low level of abstraction.
The code they are writing "works", but generally has huge performance, extensibilty and maintainability problems. The reason why I have become a Java advocate ( for corporate projects and for "sexy" open source projects - in some ways I abhor the strictures of Java when I am the only person on a project ) is that the Java market place (maybe not through conscious design) is the only one where the central concept driving changes is that almost all people programming are utter dunces. If you have to cope with tragic code, whilst not breaking it, it is very hard to do so without the tool support Java has, and it is an open research problem to make tool support as thorough as Java's or even vaguely workable with either a more dynamic (Smalltalk, Python, Ruby, JS) or more expressive static type system (C++, ML, Haskell).
Of course the best solution here is to stop employing muppets as programmers. This is certainly never going to happen in our lifetimes.
We have to start thinking of code more as data to be manipulated and reshaped over time, i.e. it is ok to have a lot of shit code as long as it can eventually be reshaped by someone with a clue when the inevitable problems come about.
Did you ever actually use Qt? It is not to be sniffed at. Its main disadvantage is the same one as all C++ toolkits : the vast majority of people programming are absolute beyond belief raving idiots and will destroy their lives very quickly when they are given as many avenues of complexity as C++ gives them. Of course, this will probably make them feel that they are experts. I've recently realised after working on a few Python projects in groups that the same sadly applies to dynamic languages : most people programming can not be trusted with anything more expressive than Java. They will happily screw that beyond hell as well, but Java tools are good enough to help you out of the mess, and any other languages tools are not. Lets not bring up the pitiful smalltalk refactoring tools that people who have never used them rave about. They were crap because they relied on type inference - and the code you really want to refactor is shit code, ie has no consistent typing. So, worse is better... sigh.
Anyway, away from that semi-relevant rant, Qt itself is pretty well done and only things that I could see as real OpenStep advantages are scope related - it deals with a lot of interapplication stuff that Qt doesn't. I would really not dismiss Qt as an MFC++ or a Win32 wrapper - MFC is so foul it shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as any vaguely sane toolkit.
If you rm a one link to an inode, (or close a file descriptor), it reduces the inodes usage count by one. When the count reaches zero, the blocks referenced by the inode are marked free. The behaviour you describe would be utterly horrendous.
What part of "a normal Western country - not the US" did you not understand? Urban gang warfare is *nothing* like as bad a problem in Europe as it is in the US. And the reason why is gun control.
Of course you will now go on about muslims in France or something, ignoring the fact that the activity in those instances was of a very different type to US gang activity.
The problem with this idiotically simplistic analysis is that it totally ignores the effect that our shit-as-fuck electoral system has on turn out in different constituencies. To cut a long story short : the turn out in safe Labour seats is ridiculously lower than anywhere else, because safe Labour seats are generally far far safer than the 'safe' seats of any other party. The effect is that Labours share of the vote is a lot lower than it would be under a rational electoral system, or than if every constituency had similar turnout.
Of course this ignores the fact that under a rational electoral system, the parties would fragment and recoallesce into entirely different entities. Trying to draw any quantative conclusions about how the UK electorate "really feels" from the results of the current broken system is foolhardy at best.
Slashdot Mirror
This shows that science is just a mass of arbitrary assertions.
This abject, craven, flip flopping about face allows me to justifiably substitute my own preferred notions into the debate as fact.
This effectively proves that global warming, vaccination, evolution, and all other liberal plots are bald faced lies.
Its an outrage! If scientists can revise their theories based on improved evidence, science is untrustworthy claptrap that must be excluded from debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_tarpit
Don't be ridiculous. "All Turing complete languages are Turing complete" is not an argument, its a tautology. ... anything. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.6.7628&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The question is how easily a concept can be expressed and reasoned about. By your logic, because diophantine equations can encode a lisp interpreter, they are a reasonable way to implement
Maybe because its a slow, me-too, mashed together dynamic language rather than a cohesive, statically typed language, designed in a peer reviewed environment with modularity, performance, safety, concurrency, and expressivity in mind?
Your claim is that paying for a patent licence in "merely aggregated" software results in being unable to distribute any software under the GPL. In the cases you state - Fraunhofer & Dolby, the patent licenced software is in userspace, which is a clear "mere aggregation" boundary set out by major copyright holders. Seperate processes, or running your code in a chip, are also pretty much watertight boundaries. And almost certainly other "not quite" process things like running a bit of firmware in kernel space is very very unlikely to be found to be a derived work of the kernel and thus have any effect on this ... so, unless tivo are idiotic enough to do codecs in a kernel module rather than in hardware or in userspace, it doesn't matter.
This case is different, it is about patent violations *in* a particular bit of GPL'ed software, ie FAT in the kernel. And no, I'm not a GPL zealot, I find it incredibly irritating in a huge number of situations - basically the point at which a project grows up and realises it wants to be a platform or library, and then has to go through a relicencing nightmare. I would never make new code GPL'd, unless its on a project that can't possibly relicence.
However I do get tired of people claiming to have found fatal flaws in the GPL : the aim I think is wrong, but take some time to understand that the implementation is solid.
The legal coward solution to this is to use a fuse implementation of vfat, and pay the ridiculous MS tithe. This way you don't impact on the GPL licence you were granted for the kernel.
Make sure you read the mere aggregation clause.
Dunce.
The problem is the attitude that the vast majority of indian programmers have.
1. They can never be wrong, or hav e made a mistake.
2. They deny reality - ie everything is always going fine, until its blatantly clear that its not, and even then its somehow still ok, if you ignore the reality that the system was meant to work.
3. Its impossible to know whether they actually understand what you said. Because they will always claim to have understood, you literally have to quiz them in detail, which can be very tedous..
4. They can't bear to disappoint someone, even when they should. I've had programmers impersonate each other on the phone, just to avoid admitting that they weren't there. But its such a half assed job that they don't even tell the other guy that they impersonated them.
Any halfway decent indians move to the UK, US and Europe *very* quickly. Also, I've seen *plenty* of utterly shit programmers from IITs. The vast majority of "successful" indian outsourcing I've seen has consisted of ~20 indian programmers producing reams of shit, and then their UK based "boss" rewriting the lot and getting a pat on the back for making outsourcing work.
Now Eastern Europeans are arrogant fucks who find it very hard to admit they are wrong as well. They do have a good sense of doom however, which makes them far less likley to lie about the state of their projects. In general they are hugely better than indians.
This is all cultural - its shocking how much more angry a westernised ( can admit mistakes, doesn't have to be percieved as omniscient) will get at working with the standard dross. I've never heard of these kinds of cultural traits being engineered in or out of a society, but I seriously hope it can be done for Indias sake. Unfortunately, this would involve facing reality and admitting they have a problem....
No, its season 7&8. 1&2 were the real thing, 3-6 were ok. 7&8 were unwatchable.
I'd love to know your definition of a non editable file...
The only thing that *should* be legally permissable is something signed with your private key. Now, who on earth is going to sign mp3s with their private key before sticking them on a p2p network, or give their private key to Apple so they can do it... oh wait.
Its a point about the politics of the thing - nothing to do with the practicality. MS will never require a piece of hardware that laptops can't have built in to be a "genuine" windows machine, and no game dev will spend their own money ( rather than a hardware manufacturers VC money ) on supporting a peripheral that is not required.
There is no economic sense in a game developer using this. Until Microsoft mandates that a bit of hardware is required for a "Genuine" windows machine, it will not factor in to any rational developers plans. And in this case its never going to happen, because it notionally excludes laptops, and no matter how painful it is in reality to play a mouse and keyboard game on a touchpad, its still "possible".
Anyway, MS want PC gaming dead just as much as everybody else now that X360 has been a relative success: any hardware innovation has to come from single source manufacturers, and in reality that means console manufacturers - and only Nintendo actually wants to even try - and Apple. All the clone makers just like to cower in a corner and pray for a behemoth like Intel, MS, or Google to innovate for them...
Its sad really, that the 80's with myriad incompatible silos of innovation seem so bright nowadays...
You are a dunce. Cisco is the copyright holder, they are not bound by the terms of a licence they grant to other legal entities, no matter how that grant was brought about.
Pants means underpants in Britain. Trousers means what you call pants.
If you hunker down and squint at it the right way, COME FROM is really an early form of aspect oriented programming - non local transfer of control to the point of definition - yeah, yeah CLOS fans we know that real generic functions subsume AOP and date from the mists of the 80s - but this is from the early 70s so it is pretty interesting. Over application of hyped technologies for the win!
This is fairly naive. On Linux and other free unices, any privilege escalation holes are considered bugs and will be fixed in a reasonable time frame. This is not the case on windows. I would like to believe it is the case on OSX but I'm unconvinced (posting from OSX). I have to admit I don't know why web browsers aren't by default run under a subservient user account (with saved downloads handed off to a much more easily audited process) ... but anyway - the conceit that all end user platforms are equivalently easy to attack is clearly bogus. "super simple" my arse.
Sorry, but as someone in the UK who is not much younger than yourself, I feel qualified to say you are talking utter rubbish. And why? To shirk a claim of exaggeration?
Very nearly no native in the UK uses cm to measure their waist size or height, or kg for their own weight. When talking about how much weight you do at the gym, or even how much an arbitrary object weighs, probably. But not your own weight.
No one over 50 *EVER* uses centigrade for the temperature except for setting the oven. Nobody.
I.e. what's 5 pounds added to 2 stone? I have absolutely no idea. But 500 grams added to 2 kilos is easy.
I'll assume you picked a bad example of the top of your head here, but this statement really just makes you look silly....
I prefer the metric system too. But truth wins over beauty, and fibbing about the UK really helps nobody.
We are not talking about your own oddball practices here, but what average people actually do.
How much beer do you drink in average month?
How tall are you?
What do you weigh?
What size trousers do you buy?
How annoying is it when old people talk about the temperature in Fahrenheit and you have to convert it to make any sense of it?
Its in wider use than you've stated. But a lot less than the GP.
Erm... you have a truly unique talent for missing the point. My "best solution" was intended as a "this is NEVER going to happen" alternative. It is quite sad that you've wasted so much time attacking an opinion that no one professes to hold. To make it simple for you - I think it is very nearly impossible to hire a sufficient number of competent programmers for *any* project, mainly because the testing of competence in programming is incredibly expensive, and competent programmers are INCREDIBLY rare. So you have to accept that up front. You can couch this in management terms if it makes you feel better paid.
Restating every argument as a variation of "which is a stuck up way of saying " also makes you look like a bit of a loon. Having technical knowledge and opinions is not, in fact, "stuck up". Argue on the level of the discussion, rather than just spouting management text book garbage.
Er, yeah. My point was, when someone contrasts Qt and OpenStep, all the "big" advantages are mainly just not having to deal with people getting into a mess with C++ ( in which it is easy to express some very neat abstractions, and ridiculously hard to express others - but this is not the way to judge a language you are choosing for other people).
If you really look at ObjC objectively, it is kind of disgusting. Don't get me wrong, it is usable, and will "normally" get muppets in to less trouble than C++, but it is C with bolt on bits of smalltalk syntax, and a very odd type system. And the tool support is quite, quite tragic.
No, I really mean what I said. Most people programming do not understand the basics of what they are doing. They have a huge problem grasping concepts if they can not envisage in their minds directly how the code they are writing will be evaluated, and they have a very limited understanding of possible computational evaluation models. So they work at a very very low level of abstraction.
The code they are writing "works", but generally has huge performance, extensibilty and maintainability problems. The reason why I have become a Java advocate ( for corporate projects and for "sexy" open source projects - in some ways I abhor the strictures of Java when I am the only person on a project ) is that the Java market place (maybe not through conscious design) is the only one where the central concept driving changes is that almost all people programming are utter dunces. If you have to cope with tragic code, whilst not breaking it, it is very hard to do so without the tool support Java has, and it is an open research problem to make tool support as thorough as Java's or even vaguely workable with either a more dynamic (Smalltalk, Python, Ruby, JS) or more expressive static type system (C++, ML, Haskell).
Of course the best solution here is to stop employing muppets as programmers. This is certainly never going to happen in our lifetimes.
We have to start thinking of code more as data to be manipulated and reshaped over time, i.e. it is ok to have a lot of shit code as long as it can eventually be reshaped by someone with a clue when the inevitable problems come about.
Did you ever actually use Qt? It is not to be sniffed at.
Its main disadvantage is the same one as all C++ toolkits : the vast majority of people programming are absolute beyond belief raving idiots and will destroy their lives very quickly when they are given as many avenues of complexity as C++ gives them. Of course, this will probably make them feel that they are experts. I've recently realised after working on a few Python projects in groups that the same sadly applies to dynamic languages : most people programming can not be trusted with anything more expressive than Java. They will happily screw that beyond hell as well, but Java tools are good enough to help you out of the mess, and any other languages tools are not. Lets not bring up the pitiful smalltalk refactoring tools that people who have never used them rave about. They were crap because they relied on type inference - and the code you really want to refactor is shit code, ie has no consistent typing. So, worse is better... sigh.
Anyway, away from that semi-relevant rant, Qt itself is pretty well done and only things that I could see as real OpenStep advantages are scope related - it deals with a lot of interapplication stuff that Qt doesn't. I would really not dismiss Qt as an MFC++ or a Win32 wrapper - MFC is so foul it shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as any vaguely sane toolkit.
And horse radish sauce is a hell of a lot closer to wasabi than mustard.
If you rm a one link to an inode, (or close a file descriptor), it reduces the inodes usage count by one. When the count reaches zero, the blocks referenced by the inode are marked free. The behaviour you describe would be utterly horrendous.
What part of "a normal Western country - not the US" did you not understand? Urban gang warfare is *nothing* like as bad a problem in Europe as it is in the US. And the reason why is gun control.
Of course you will now go on about muslims in France or something, ignoring the fact that the activity in those instances was of a very different type to US gang activity.
The problem with this idiotically simplistic analysis is that it totally ignores the effect that our shit-as-fuck electoral system has on turn out in different constituencies. To cut a long story short : the turn out in safe Labour seats is ridiculously lower than anywhere else, because safe Labour seats are generally far far safer than the 'safe' seats of any other party. The effect is that Labours share of the vote is a lot lower than it would be under a rational electoral system, or than if every constituency had similar turnout.
Of course this ignores the fact that under a rational electoral system, the parties would fragment and recoallesce into entirely different entities. Trying to draw any quantative conclusions about how the UK electorate "really feels" from the results of the current broken system is foolhardy at best.
This is a new one. Are you seriously suggesting that complex monopolies and cartels are economically impossible and have never existed?
Amazing, even for a throat-stamping free market fundamentalist.