Something is missing from this riddle. Shouldn't it be that you get just one question to figure out who is the liar? How can you both figure that out and get directions if you have only one question, then you must make that question about what direction to go (and that won't help)?
This is more of a joke than a puzzle, but worthy of a thought perhaps.
N is the set of all integers. M is the set of all integers except 0. Given the associativity and commutativity of addition, removing one member from an added set of integers must of course be equivalent to subtracting the same number from the sum of the set.
If that is the issue, not "completely complying," (whatever that means) then judging from the commentary here it seems reactions are a little out of proportion to the "crime"... But of course, it's just another flame fest. The community needs its regular flame fests, and the nerds need to compensate with some righteous outrage every now and then. Never mind MySQL's history, that those people actually gave some of the most used code in the free software world to the community.
There was a time when the free software community was discussing whether they were interested in attracting "leechers," people who used their software but were not code contributors. Many didn't want any such users at all. How many of the people moralizing against MySQL have ever contributed one line of code to a project, sent a single bug report? But they are now True Believers, who can lecture to people who have made one of the most used applications in free software? Right...
This is the only relevant comment to my initial point:
"3. The current cost is $600 / year - likely to go up now that oracle owns innodb"
MySQL Community Edition is free, even for commercial use. However, it's really funny that people get their panties in a bunch when a company wants to actually charge them for its product. "You must give it to us for free, or you are evil!" LOL
"The gist of your lame argument is that you can't criticize something unless you're personally involved. What garbage. That's like saying we can't say that microsoft is wrong in trying to implement DRM unless we're employees of the company. bleh."
As anyone with a basic sense of reciprocation understands, that would be exactly correct if they were giving you their stuff for free. The reason we have a right to criticize Microsoft, in fact the reason we started hating them in the first place, is obviously because we are contributing, by paying for their product, and that we have to pay for it in the cases where they have us in a monopoly situation. That you don't even seem to recognize the difference is exactly what bothers me. It didn't used to be like this, something in the O/S-community has derailed.
So, he's given you a fast and stable database for free. Or what part of what you just said contradicted that?
The way I remember it, free software is a lot about contribution. So if you're not contributing code to MySQL or sending in bug fixes, shut up and be glad they're giving you a free database. If you don't like it then don't use it, it's really very simple. But if you're not a contributor, you really have no platform from which to moralize.
This guy has given you a fast, stable database, that you can run and use for free as you please. And now because he has committed himself to making a version for SCO, you feel entitled to giving him crap? Okay... the Linux d00ds of today really need to try working for a living sometime.
Yes, MySQL has some unknown kind of business relationship with SCO so now they pwn our souls and we will have to pay for all your open source software and our families will have to start working 12-hour days at Microsoft for no pay. I hate those MySQL traitors, they've spoiled everything! Farewell, cruel world!! *bang*
There is sunlight falling on the front of Kurt. The cat's body is in shadow (or you would see reflexes). This is not possible if the cat body is large and hanging only some feet in front of Kurt, but perfectly consistent with it hanging close to the camera, with some other object (e.g., a roof) shading it from the sun.
The article says: "Kurt Engel photographed the dead animal and cut off its tail after shooting it while hunting deer in rugged terrain near Sale in June."
But look at the picture. There is a neat pile of firewood behind Kurt and it looks like a lawn in front of him and there's a dirt road close by--in this supposedly "rugged terrain." My guess is the poor cat is hanging from the porch roof.
It's hilarious though, especially with all the people proclaiming to know what species cat it is. You can be had.
Once you realize it it is so obvious. The head can have been taken off by a dog or other larger predator. It might even be a roadkill. Just look at the picture again. It's bloody hilarious, especially when "experts" come forward and proclaim to know the species and breed of cat and how it got its head blown off, and readers moderate them to 5:Informative. Hahahaha!
Look at the pic again. It's just an ordinary domestic cat hanging close to the camera. It also explains why it has no head. An ordinary cat's head comes off a lot easier (by maybe a larger predator? dog?) than the head of a puma!
"Feral cat" simply means a domestic cat gone wild. There have been feral cats in Europe and Asia for thousands of years, and in Australia for a couple of hundred years. Unless it has eaten radioactive waste and stars in a cheap horror movie, it gets about the size of a large domestic cat at most. It's not the size of Australian cats that is unusual, but of Australian imagination. That's why there is not a single specimen of Giant Australian Feral Cat in captivity, on a single picture, or stuffed somewhere. The idea that the body shown in the picture is of a domestic cat that has evolved over a few hundred years is hilarious. As I said, I do like the stories.
I love Aussie fishing stories.:-) There is no way "evolution" can turn a domestic cat into something the size of a panther in less than a few million years.
My response would mostly just be a reiteration of the points of thin clients, so it feels a bit redundant. Suffice it to say that there are enough points to centrally configured and managed software to make a sysadmin drool. (Some of us at least.)
(And yes, these are thin clients. They are not thick clients. I don't have any particular technical specification in mind, just thin clients.)
Internet connections are simply not this unstable, at least for a significant number of users, and they are getting faster and more stable every day. You are also ignoring the administrative overhead and stability and compatibility issues with locally running software, as if there were none. I think the security considerations brought up in the other reply is a more valid objection than this. However (also in response to the other reply) the cross-company compatibility is exactly the point of a web-based solution. The only software except MS Office that you can be sure that your clients have installed is a web browser. (Of course, if they insist on sending you Word documents, you still need to have it. It's not a complete and perfect solution, or we would already be using it.)
This is obviously the rant of a person who has never programmed for an actual client (a human one). 99% of the time a spec is the understanding between the user and the provider, whoever they are. So yes, Torvalds is right that they are mainly for talking about software, but unless you are writing your own operating system on your free time, you have to be able to talk about it or you will implement something other than what the client thought they paid you for, and then they get sour. Specifications are about understanding and communication, when not the whole universe is inside one person's head.
Moreover, Torvalds doesn't really seem to know what science is. There just is no criterion that a scientific theory has "no holes." It doesn't work that way.
Thin, web-based clients have been a good idea for a long time. As for security, it's obviously a solvable (solved) problem. I guess this might actually take off with ubiquitous broadband connections etc. I hope so, I believed it was a valid threat to the MS monopoly already when SUN raved about it ten years ago.
It's a bad application of the word based on ambiguation and confusion. The theoretical research that precedes RDF and semantic databases such as Wordnet and CYC is actually much like ontology in the traditional sense. That is, it consists in deciding what sorts of entities qualifies (are "real") and on what grounds, and so on. So the result of such a project was called "an ontology." But since the word is cool-sounding and using it suggests that you Know Stuff(tm), it was inevitable that any relational database with random stuff would eventually be called an ontology.
Wordnet is a free semantic database with ~150,000 words and their semantic relations, and libs for several programming languages. I have played with it a lot over the years and it's an amazing database. (There are also versions being created for other languages than English.) http://wordnet.princeton.edu/
Hmmm...yessss...and maybe this reflects that nature knows how to design better programming systems than we do.
Why does it have to be a "programming system"?? This implies that there is some useful information-theoretical analogy when there is none. DNA is not a tape to be fed into a Turing machine. Nor is it a Turing machine.
Ones which are free of the mundane constraints of compiling and interrupting.
Rather, one that is free of the criteria that define the term "program." Nature is the program, if you insist on using the metaphor, and that program did not come about through biological evolution. Biological evolution is also part of the program.
Slashdot Mirror
What a sad story about villagers who are deaf and desperate for some human contact committing suicide. Now you've ruined my day.
Something is missing from this riddle. Shouldn't it be that you get just one question to figure out who is the liar? How can you both figure that out and get directions if you have only one question, then you must make that question about what direction to go (and that won't help)?
Good riddle.
Can I ask all three questions of the same god?
N is the set of all integers. M is the set of all integers except 0. Given the associativity and commutativity of addition, removing one member from an added set of integers must of course be equivalent to subtracting the same number from the sum of the set.
If that is the issue, not "completely complying," (whatever that means) then judging from the commentary here it seems reactions are a little out of proportion to the "crime"... But of course, it's just another flame fest. The community needs its regular flame fests, and the nerds need to compensate with some righteous outrage every now and then. Never mind MySQL's history, that those people actually gave some of the most used code in the free software world to the community.
There was a time when the free software community was discussing whether they were interested in attracting "leechers," people who used their software but were not code contributors. Many didn't want any such users at all. How many of the people moralizing against MySQL have ever contributed one line of code to a project, sent a single bug report? But they are now True Believers, who can lecture to people who have made one of the most used applications in free software? Right...
This is the only relevant comment to my initial point:
"3. The current cost is $600 / year - likely to go up now that oracle owns innodb"
MySQL Community Edition is free, even for commercial use. However, it's really funny that people get their panties in a bunch when a company wants to actually charge them for its product. "You must give it to us for free, or you are evil!" LOL
"The gist of your lame argument is that you can't criticize something unless you're personally involved. What garbage. That's like saying we can't say that microsoft is wrong in trying to implement DRM unless we're employees of the company. bleh."
As anyone with a basic sense of reciprocation understands, that would be exactly correct if they were giving you their stuff for free. The reason we have a right to criticize Microsoft, in fact the reason we started hating them in the first place, is obviously because we are contributing, by paying for their product, and that we have to pay for it in the cases where they have us in a monopoly situation. That you don't even seem to recognize the difference is exactly what bothers me. It didn't used to be like this, something in the O/S-community has derailed.
So, he's given you a fast and stable database for free. Or what part of what you just said contradicted that?
The way I remember it, free software is a lot about contribution. So if you're not contributing code to MySQL or sending in bug fixes, shut up and be glad they're giving you a free database. If you don't like it then don't use it, it's really very simple. But if you're not a contributor, you really have no platform from which to moralize.
This guy has given you a fast, stable database, that you can run and use for free as you please. And now because he has committed himself to making a version for SCO, you feel entitled to giving him crap? Okay... the Linux d00ds of today really need to try working for a living sometime.
Yes, MySQL has some unknown kind of business relationship with SCO so now they pwn our souls and we will have to pay for all your open source software and our families will have to start working 12-hour days at Microsoft for no pay. I hate those MySQL traitors, they've spoiled everything! Farewell, cruel world!! *bang*
There is sunlight falling on the front of Kurt. The cat's body is in shadow (or you would see reflexes). This is not possible if the cat body is large and hanging only some feet in front of Kurt, but perfectly consistent with it hanging close to the camera, with some other object (e.g., a roof) shading it from the sun.
Once you see it it's so obvious. It lost its head to a dog, a car, a larger predator or something like that. Here's a larger version of the picture._ page/0,5936,16855046%255E903,00.html
http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story
The article says:
"Kurt Engel photographed the dead animal and cut off its tail after shooting it while hunting deer in rugged terrain near Sale in June."
But look at the picture. There is a neat pile of firewood behind Kurt and it looks like a lawn in front of him and there's a dirt road close by--in this supposedly "rugged terrain." My guess is the poor cat is hanging from the porch roof.
It's hilarious though, especially with all the people proclaiming to know what species cat it is. You can be had.
Once you realize it it is so obvious. The head can have been taken off by a dog or other larger predator. It might even be a roadkill. Just look at the picture again. It's bloody hilarious, especially when "experts" come forward and proclaim to know the species and breed of cat and how it got its head blown off, and readers moderate them to 5:Informative. Hahahaha!
http://www.snopes.com/photos/bugs/camelspider.asp
Look at the pic again. It's just an ordinary domestic cat hanging close to the camera. It also explains why it has no head. An ordinary cat's head comes off a lot easier (by maybe a larger predator? dog?) than the head of a puma!
"Feral cat" simply means a domestic cat gone wild. There have been feral cats in Europe and Asia for thousands of years, and in Australia for a couple of hundred years. Unless it has eaten radioactive waste and stars in a cheap horror movie, it gets about the size of a large domestic cat at most. It's not the size of Australian cats that is unusual, but of Australian imagination. That's why there is not a single specimen of Giant Australian Feral Cat in captivity, on a single picture, or stuffed somewhere. The idea that the body shown in the picture is of a domestic cat that has evolved over a few hundred years is hilarious. As I said, I do like the stories.
c ations/cat/
Here is some info on Australian feral cats from the Australian government:
http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publi
I love Aussie fishing stories. :-) There is no way "evolution" can turn a domestic cat into something the size of a panther in less than a few million years.
His name was Karl Popper. And my "karma" is superior to yours. ;-)
However, I agree about the story. Dumped the carcass? Head blown off?? Right...
You make it sound as if people are never in the same room in traditional projects. :-)
My response would mostly just be a reiteration of the points of thin clients, so it feels a bit redundant. Suffice it to say that there are enough points to centrally configured and managed software to make a sysadmin drool. (Some of us at least.)
(And yes, these are thin clients. They are not thick clients. I don't have any particular technical specification in mind, just thin clients.)
Internet connections are simply not this unstable, at least for a significant number of users, and they are getting faster and more stable every day. You are also ignoring the administrative overhead and stability and compatibility issues with locally running software, as if there were none. I think the security considerations brought up in the other reply is a more valid objection than this. However (also in response to the other reply) the cross-company compatibility is exactly the point of a web-based solution. The only software except MS Office that you can be sure that your clients have installed is a web browser. (Of course, if they insist on sending you Word documents, you still need to have it. It's not a complete and perfect solution, or we would already be using it.)
This is obviously the rant of a person who has never programmed for an actual client (a human one). 99% of the time a spec is the understanding between the user and the provider, whoever they are. So yes, Torvalds is right that they are mainly for talking about software, but unless you are writing your own operating system on your free time, you have to be able to talk about it or you will implement something other than what the client thought they paid you for, and then they get sour. Specifications are about understanding and communication, when not the whole universe is inside one person's head.
Moreover, Torvalds doesn't really seem to know what science is. There just is no criterion that a scientific theory has "no holes." It doesn't work that way.
Thin, web-based clients have been a good idea for a long time. As for security, it's obviously a solvable (solved) problem. I guess this might actually take off with ubiquitous broadband connections etc. I hope so, I believed it was a valid threat to the MS monopoly already when SUN raved about it ten years ago.
It's a bad application of the word based on ambiguation and confusion. The theoretical research that precedes RDF and semantic databases such as Wordnet and CYC is actually much like ontology in the traditional sense. That is, it consists in deciding what sorts of entities qualifies (are "real") and on what grounds, and so on. So the result of such a project was called "an ontology." But since the word is cool-sounding and using it suggests that you Know Stuff(tm), it was inevitable that any relational database with random stuff would eventually be called an ontology.
Wordnet is a free semantic database with ~150,000 words and their semantic relations, and libs for several programming languages. I have played with it a lot over the years and it's an amazing database. (There are also versions being created for other languages than English.)
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/
"Overbloated" is a redundant (overbloated) expression.
Hmmm...yessss...and maybe this reflects that nature knows how to design better programming systems than we do.
Why does it have to be a "programming system"?? This implies that there is some useful information-theoretical analogy when there is none. DNA is not a tape to be fed into a Turing machine. Nor is it a Turing machine.
Ones which are free of the mundane constraints of compiling and interrupting.
Rather, one that is free of the criteria that define the term "program." Nature is the program, if you insist on using the metaphor, and that program did not come about through biological evolution. Biological evolution is also part of the program.