With the shell_exec(=backticks), you would invoke the system, but the program would still do the exact same thing. It is illogical if the first version spreads the GPL, while the 2nd version may call proprietary code.
Selection and thus evolution will still happen, due to not mating or not having children.
It just will be an internal pressure severly influence by capital and culture. In fact, it has been speculated that most of our culture, like music and pretty clothes, started as an adornment that had no particular value in itself. There is for example the interesting detail that the Neandertals seemingly were unable to make holes into stones to carry them as jewelry, so the modern humans distinguished themselves that way.
The speculation that there will be no development in the future due to "one world, one people" just has not arrived yet and will not for a long time., and during the time the present differences get flattened out, new differences will crop up.
Maybe that explains why the Linux kernel isn't a microkernel.. R.M. Stallman probably would get a heart attack if proprietary drivers could be distributed along with the kernel when they were included as separate works, attached by a clean interface.
But really, what constitutes an interface? You could detach many kernel modules, drivers and code by calling a separate process, like in backticks operators, it would just be horribly slow. But maybe not so slow if you had optimized the process, like using some form of interprocess communication.
So really, I think that just considering the backtick operator as a form of separation would break as soon as someone puts his heart into breaking it.
Let me try to follow your argument - consider the LGPL for libraries - if all you'd need was a clean interface to establish a separate work, then there would be no need for the LGPL at all, since the library would already be a separate work under the terms of the GPL.
And yes I understand the difference between compiling and interpreting/linking, but I also understand that most of the stuff you can interpret can also be compiled (gcj,php).
I'm not really sure whether your example, including proprietary code by calling the shell, is exactly the thing that can be called "mere aggregation".
Suppose, for example that you had a perl compiler which would somehow parse the stuff in the backtick operator and would create a single binary from it.
Then, you would just end up with one program and the GPL would apply. For your example, I admit my argument is somewhat odd, but for a lot of other situations, for example when a C program calls some scripting, e.g. in lua, then the argument is not as clear cut.
IMHO, if you took it to court, it would depend on how much of the functionality of your program was implemented by the called function, i.e. if you asked me, just calling proprietary code indirectly thru backticks would not be enough to separate the work, but handing lots of parameters to the function called might make it clear that this function is really called at the discretion of the caller. Another good question would be, is the called subprogram useful without the caller, or is it so specific that it is an extension.
But what if the base is not 2, but is only 1.01? Then, adding 200 bits to the number only makes the problem 7 times harder (1.01 ^ 200).
Adding a bit always means base 2. Perhaps you meant to say "adding a digit"? Now apart from the basic prooblem that there is no such digit representing 1.01 (or.01), the difficulty of factoring is not changed by choosing a lower base. All your posts are saying to us is that the numbers get bigger quickly in comparision to the number of digits added if these digits are in a large base.
If anything, in fact factoring would get easier in a larger base, at least this would the complexity of the algorithm somewhere else, e.g. into hardware.
A least you proved that one doesn't need a computer program as a generator(slashdot reported) to generate bu77sh1t.
It has been discovered that the reason is the probe tried to unfold segment 2 twice, since it was reading 10 in binary. The responsible engineer declined to comment, but was overheard saying: "I checked everything 10 times".
If you want to discuss your new water-fuelled-engine invention, go somewhere private.
Well, I heard the Russian embassy offers these private rooms which are protected by all known countermeasures against eavesdropping. Maybe that is what you mean?
As near as I can tell, the debate is whether it's our fault or not. If the Earth is warming and is going to screw us over no matter what we do, what does it matter if you keep driving your SUV or not?
If the earth is warming up, not wasting energy and producing CO2 might help. If nothing helps, why would it matter to you to keep driving your SUV?
I see it as a draw regarding the multiple forms needed to emulate links as actions, since it limits my choices.
I think you misunderstood why I think IE buttons work bad with very long button texts.(font-family:Arial;) There is extra space left and right. In addition it sux graphically because IE has a single image for the buttons, so that the corners are stretched as well, looking very ugly and pixelated.
You are of course right with the "width:10em" but I just don't feel happy diving into technical complications that may or may not break with some browser version. Handcrafting every single CSS for every element is such a complication.
It is nice that you protect your clients from data loss, but somehow I feel a client should not let an Accelerator crawl a web site that is protected by a login. Just imagine what this accelerator would do to http://www.everything2.com/s softlinking feature. I know, you would have worked around the problem, but I guess you get paid well by the minute and don't have to invest essentially free time into this like other people.
I would not be very happy to have to use buttons for everything. First off, it means I have to query the name and value of the Button as a request value, since it will submit the entire form. This is a mess, unless you invest heavily into some i8n solution.
I guess one could work around this problem for links named "delete", but what about that IE will calculate the width of the button in fixed width font, so that long links will suck as buttons.
Am I supposed to somehow force the button width with CSS? Then I'd also have to make the user unable to change font size. So my page will be unaccessible to anyone with a vision handicap and then I'll be violating yet another Web Design Mantra.
Maybe I would even welcome your ideas, Mr. Anonymous Coward, if I could expect appreciation for the extra work I have to invest. However, I think beyond a certain level there is not much to gain. After that threshold, people pay and appreciate you to solve problems they have, not problems they might have in the future.
I would suggest that pages that MAY be prefetched MUST be marked as such. Similar to pragma NO-CACHE.
To solve one of my initial problems, forms would need to be nested, then buttons would be useful. Or you'd have to use the javascript workaround with otherForm.submit() the other AC talked about.
Where in the article do you get the idea that he is not open to the idea of climate change?
Well, that is the problem. People do get the idea that there is no climate change because claims like that get made. Also his paper is kind of "meta". It doesn't really bring the debate along.
The problem is that climate change is not a 50:50 problem with even payouts on a win or loss. It is more like "Earth goes completely bust, lose 4 billion Human pop permanently" or "Win, no earth warming, you can keep driving your SUV and run your two TVs from gas electriciyt generators for a while".
Thus, any argument against that a global warming threat exists has to be very solid. Otherwise it might just as well come from the Disciples of Cthulhu, judging how much destruction a wrong move in this situation can wreak.
Actually it is Russels paradox, but it is pretty much alike, only that Goedel looks further.
Now excuse me, I have to drink my tea, if you want more details, use google, or hire me for a 15 minute talk. I'm kind of terse, so that is plenty of time.
See Salmons abstracts: it seems quite some people on the internet have an interest in river salmons.
Well, maybe you are right that there are papers that do not turn up on the internet, but why does this guy has to spread his ideas the way he does when the media will happily magnify the dissenting ideas of one person, while just mentioning the consensus in a sidenote?
I also wonder, if he is researching the impact of climate change on ancient civilizations, shouldn't he be more open to the idea that climate change may affect our civilization? Or am I to conclude that he has studied his field only to find out that the topic he is researching is bunk? Which would be sad then.
"IBM loses 14,000 jobs" - how pessimistic - why not phrase it:
"IBM sets free a workforce of 14,000 skilled workers".
It's all about spin. After all, people thought it was cool when the Sovjet Union collapsed and set free millions of workers employed in the military complex.
Patents in general always sucked, because they were simply a small improvement over the royal grant of a monopoly.
There may be good reasons for granting a monopoly to someone, but none of these can expressed in the rules for patents and even the rules on what constitutes a valid patent are vague. Such that the only rule a patent has to follow today to be granted is that it is new(and sometimes not even that).
Clearly the requirement of originality(sometimes called height of invention or inventiveness), while never being able to be actually verified in the past, i.e. being vague, is completely pointless today when let's say 25% of the populace are educated enough to come up with pretty good ideas by themselves. With computer programs, this is just more obvious.
Admittedly, some patents did come pretty close to be inventive as well as benefitting from a monopoly, but if you worked through the details of many patents with a contemporary, you could find lots of ideas in the patents that were state-of-the-art at the time, or that were kind of "in the air".
However, there is no "working implementation of the patent system", and even if there was, it would require someone to pay the tremendous costs for reviewing all those crappy patents, even if you could toss out many by just forbidding software patents. You can imagine that the costs for reviewing patents will not somehow magically be carried by the government or even corporations, but will be carried eventually by the consumer or small inventor.
And Windows is a VMS clone. Gates just had the genius to change slashes to backslashes to avoid lawsuits and also make sure his OS was incompatible to the original.
Just choose the next letter in the alphabet V=>W M=>N S=>T and you get Windows NT.
And you are the clone of your father. In your own words: Like an animal. Devoid of any intelligence, unable to create just emulate.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is there is not as much difference between a backtick and a function call as people amke it out to be.
For example, you could imagine that one could do, in pseudo-sourcecode:
?php
doA();
include('B.php');
or you could do:
?php
doA();
echo shell_exec('env '.passArgs($_REQUEST).' php.exe B.php');
With the shell_exec(=backticks), you would invoke the system, but the program would still do the exact same thing. It is illogical if the first version spreads the GPL, while the 2nd version may call proprietary code.
Selection and thus evolution will still happen, due to not mating or not having children.
It just will be an internal pressure severly influence by capital and culture. In fact, it has been speculated that most of our culture, like music and pretty clothes, started as an adornment that had no particular value in itself. There is for example the interesting detail that the Neandertals seemingly were unable to make holes into stones to carry them as jewelry, so the modern humans distinguished themselves that way.
The speculation that there will be no development in the future due to "one world, one people" just has not arrived yet and will not for a long time., and during the time the present differences get flattened out, new differences will crop up.
Maybe that explains why the Linux kernel isn't a microkernel .. R.M. Stallman probably would get a heart attack if proprietary drivers could be distributed along with the kernel when they were included as separate works, attached by a clean interface.
But really, what constitutes an interface? You could detach many kernel modules, drivers and code by calling a separate process, like in backticks operators, it would just be horribly slow. But maybe not so slow if you had optimized the process, like using some form of interprocess communication.
So really, I think that just considering the backtick operator as a form of separation would break as soon as someone puts his heart into breaking it.
Let me try to follow your argument - consider the LGPL for libraries - if all you'd need was a clean interface to establish a separate work, then there would be no need for the LGPL at all, since the library would already be a separate work under the terms of the GPL.
And yes I understand the difference between compiling and interpreting/linking, but I also understand that most of the stuff you can interpret can also be compiled (gcj,php).
I'm not really sure whether your example, including proprietary code by calling the shell, is exactly the thing that can be called "mere aggregation".
Suppose, for example that you had a perl compiler which would somehow parse the stuff in the backtick operator and would create a single binary from it.
Then, you would just end up with one program and the GPL would apply. For your example, I admit my argument is somewhat odd, but for a lot of other situations, for example when a C program calls some scripting, e.g. in lua, then the argument is not as clear cut.
IMHO, if you took it to court, it would depend on how much of the functionality of your program was implemented by the called function, i.e. if you asked me, just calling proprietary code indirectly thru backticks would not be enough to separate the work, but handing lots of parameters to the function called might make it clear that this function is really called at the discretion of the caller. Another good question would be, is the called subprogram useful without the caller, or is it so specific that it is an extension.
But what if the base is not 2, but is only 1.01? Then, adding 200 bits to the number only makes the problem 7 times harder (1.01 ^ 200).
Adding a bit always means base 2. Perhaps you meant to say "adding a digit"? Now apart from the basic prooblem that there is no such digit representing 1.01 (orIf anything, in fact factoring would get easier in a larger base, at least this would the complexity of the algorithm somewhere else, e.g. into hardware.
A least you proved that one doesn't need a computer program as a generator(slashdot reported) to generate bu77sh1t.Re:I TOLD THEM TO CHECK SEGMENT 10!
It has been discovered that the reason is the probe tried to unfold segment 2 twice, since it was reading 10 in binary. The responsible engineer declined to comment, but was overheard saying: "I checked everything 10 times".+1 Funny + -1 Overrated = -1 Karma ;-)
=>burning of fossile fuels(C+2O=CO2)
=>global warming
=>more hurricanes in Florida
=>less spammers
=>less spam
If you want to discuss your new water-fuelled-engine invention, go somewhere private.
Well, I heard the Russian embassy offers these private rooms which are protected by all known countermeasures against eavesdropping. Maybe that is what you mean?As near as I can tell, the debate is whether it's our fault or not. If the Earth is warming and is going to screw us over no matter what we do, what does it matter if you keep driving your SUV or not?
If the earth is warming up, not wasting energy and producing CO2 might help. If nothing helps, why would it matter to you to keep driving your SUV?Well, you are right. Not everything that results from this is straightforward tho, but workable.
I see it as a draw regarding the multiple forms needed to emulate links as actions, since it limits my choices.
I think you misunderstood why I think IE buttons work bad with very long button texts.(font-family:Arial;) There is extra space left and right. In addition it sux graphically because IE has a single image for the buttons, so that the corners are stretched as well, looking very ugly and pixelated.
You are of course right with the "width:10em" but I just don't feel happy diving into technical complications that may or may not break with some browser version. Handcrafting every single CSS for every element is such a complication.
It is nice that you protect your clients from data loss, but somehow I feel a client should not let an Accelerator crawl a web site that is protected by a login. Just imagine what this accelerator would do to http://www.everything2.com/s softlinking feature. I know, you would have worked around the problem, but I guess you get paid well by the minute and don't have to invest essentially free time into this like other people.
I would not be very happy to have to use buttons for everything. First off, it means I have to query the name and value of the Button as a request value, since it will submit the entire form. This is a mess, unless you invest heavily into some i8n solution.
I guess one could work around this problem for links named "delete", but what about that IE will calculate the width of the button in fixed width font, so that long links will suck as buttons.
Am I supposed to somehow force the button width with CSS? Then I'd also have to make the user unable to change font size. So my page will be unaccessible to anyone with a vision handicap and then I'll be violating yet another Web Design Mantra.
Maybe I would even welcome your ideas, Mr. Anonymous Coward, if I could expect appreciation for the extra work I have to invest. However, I think beyond a certain level there is not much to gain. After that threshold, people pay and appreciate you to solve problems they have, not problems they might have in the future.
I would suggest that pages that MAY be prefetched MUST be marked as such. Similar to pragma NO-CACHE.
To solve one of my initial problems, forms would need to be nested, then buttons would be useful. Or you'd have to use the javascript workaround with otherForm.submit() the other AC talked about.
This practice of bundling unassociated bills is completely insane.
I was always doing this as Consul in Republic of Rome boardgame, but at least I knew I was being corrupt at the time.
Let's see if this kind of progress can be carried over into the EU.
Where in the article do you get the idea that he is not open to the idea of climate change?
Well, that is the problem. People do get the idea that there is no climate change because claims like that get made. Also his paper is kind of "meta". It doesn't really bring the debate along.The problem is that climate change is not a 50:50 problem with even payouts on a win or loss. It is more like "Earth goes completely bust, lose 4 billion Human pop permanently" or "Win, no earth warming, you can keep driving your SUV and run your two TVs from gas electriciyt generators for a while".
Thus, any argument against that a global warming threat exists has to be very solid. Otherwise it might just as well come from the Disciples of Cthulhu, judging how much destruction a wrong move in this situation can wreak.
Actually it is Russels paradox, but it is pretty much alike, only that Goedel looks further.
Now excuse me, I have to drink my tea, if you want more details, use google, or hire me for a 15 minute talk. I'm kind of terse, so that is plenty of time.
Well, maybe you are right that there are papers that do not turn up on the internet, but why does this guy has to spread his ideas the way he does when the media will happily magnify the dissenting ideas of one person, while just mentioning the consensus in a sidenote?
I also wonder, if he is researching the impact of climate change on ancient civilizations, shouldn't he be more open to the idea that climate change may affect our civilization? Or am I to conclude that he has studied his field only to find out that the topic he is researching is bunk? Which would be sad then.
"IBM loses 14,000 jobs" - how pessimistic - why not phrase it:
"IBM sets free a workforce of 14,000 skilled workers".
It's all about spin. After all, people thought it was cool when the Sovjet Union collapsed and set free millions of workers employed in the military complex.
In init(), there is
..
ListValuesLoader listValues = new ListValuesLoader();
but no global.
However, I can't find the object where the data is actually cached. Is it a Singleton somewhere? Pretty well hidden it must be
At least partially.
So, you can save result in a file, but can yo usave them in memory too, using PHP?
Or (do) sit on the passenger seat.
How about Fortwent, Fortswam or Fortsped?
Patents in general always sucked, because they were simply a small improvement over the royal grant of a monopoly.
There may be good reasons for granting a monopoly to someone, but none of these can expressed in the rules for patents and even the rules on what constitutes a valid patent are vague. Such that the only rule a patent has to follow today to be granted is that it is new(and sometimes not even that).
Clearly the requirement of originality(sometimes called height of invention or inventiveness), while never being able to be actually verified in the past, i.e. being vague, is completely pointless today when let's say 25% of the populace are educated enough to come up with pretty good ideas by themselves. With computer programs, this is just more obvious.
Admittedly, some patents did come pretty close to be inventive as well as benefitting from a monopoly, but if you worked through the details of many patents with a contemporary, you could find lots of ideas in the patents that were state-of-the-art at the time, or that were kind of "in the air".
However, there is no "working implementation of the patent system", and even if there was, it would require someone to pay the tremendous costs for reviewing all those crappy patents, even if you could toss out many by just forbidding software patents. You can imagine that the costs for reviewing patents will not somehow magically be carried by the government or even corporations, but will be carried eventually by the consumer or small inventor.
Well, why not use Gaim then.
It can handle both MSNmsnger and YIM.
"The One IM To Rule then all"
And Windows is a VMS clone. Gates just had the genius to change slashes to backslashes to avoid lawsuits and also make sure his OS was incompatible to the original.
Just choose the next letter in the alphabet
V=>W
M=>N
S=>T
and you get Windows NT.
And you are the clone of your father.
In your own words:
Like an animal. Devoid of any intelligence, unable to create just emulate.