We have more reliable information about Jesus than we do about any other figure of ancient history.
I give you Julius Caesar, Augustus, Herod, and countless others in the same timeframe whose history is much more thoroughly documented than the shady figure of Jesus of Nazareth.
Chain-smokers have one very great advantage over your average non-smoking Joe though. They die young. Unlike non-smokers, who will stay alive for tens of years on medications and treatments, until their body finally gives up, the chain smoker will die after a comparatively short and cheap period of illness, most likely while they are still working and paying taxes instead of parasiting on a well-earned pension. If you worry about health-care costs, you should entice people to take up smoking instead of complaining about it.
Cheney as president would be a lot better than the situation we have now. Having the puppetmaster take central stage, and thereby taken some responsibility for his actions will not change policy in the slightest. He's deciding on policy now. As a president he doesn't gain power, only exposure. It will be interesting to see if Presidential approval can get into the single digits.
Whatever. Gays are subhuman anyway. So we're at 13 out of 14. Way to go. I've been in, and lived in quite a few countries in the western world, but I have yet to see a western country outside of the US that is that militaristic. that patriotic, where proclaimed atheism is political suicide, where there is a Dpt. of Homeland Security (dressed in black no less), so obsessed with crime and (capitol) punishment; which is so corrupt (up to the it being instutioned: pork laws); where cronyism seems to have taken over the law as well; and in which elections are so suspect.
And it's not getting better.
What would your definition of fascism be, if you don't accept these symptoms? Hitler's national socialism? That's just one. Look at Mussolini and Franco, and you'll get a better idea of what is meant by fascism. And no, fascism is not about exterminating Jews (though having scapegoats helps).
Some of them are indeed true to a certain extent for most countries. Most of them aren't, however. Most western European countries I know score about 5 or 6 on this list. The UK maybe 10. The US scores a resounding 14 out of 14 (note that the sexism one also covers abortion and gay rights). Particularly numbers 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are fairly rare on the European continent, though adequately describe the climate in the US.
As for efficiency without robots: zap back 40 years, visit a bank or an insurance company, and witness halls filled with 1000-10000 clerks performing routine account operations. I've seen such a place 20 years ago in Indonesia. Come back to the now and see a tiny computer doing that same stuff millions time faster without a single person in the loop. Finance has been radically transformed due to computers, with not a robot in sight.
Given that 80% of the country wanted to 'take out Saddam', regardless of the consequences, and now 70% wants to 'get the hell out of Iraq', again regardless of consequences, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of the American populace has no fucking clue about what their opinion is. Such sheep should not be listened to.
According to my understanding, 10 year grants are not how science funding works in the USA these days. You need to be able to produce weapons^Wresults in 18 months time, without employing any foreign workers. Only small-time provincial universities go for deals like this, as there's no scientific value whatsoever to be found in such a granting scheme.
I've heard the rumour that after MIT, CalTech, CMU, Stanford and Berkeley complained in unison that this was idiotic (both to the schedule and that all grant money went to smalltime unis), they were told that apparently their research was not good enough.
Wise words from the time when people were debating the runtime implications of using a for loop versus a goto, or pre-incrementing versus post-incrementing integers. Nowadays, with layers upon layers of glue code, beans, clusters, databases, stack dumps 100s of levels deep, virtual machines running operating systems running virtual machines: we've created much greater evils than premature optimization ever did. Nowadays premature optimization is mostly harmless.
I sure wish some of these middle-ware pushers would have wasted some time doing some premature optimization: maybe that would have put some runtime realism in their heads, and some stop on the root of all evil: battling bloat with more bloat.
I don't eat what I wouldn't feel comfortable killing myself. This excludes my pets (but possibly not yours), humans, and lots of endangered species (I don't eat cod and eel anymore for instance). Pigs, cows, horses, sheep, chicken, mussels, the occasional dolphin, small primates: all fair game.
It's even worse than this. The input data to the model is very subjective. Take the type of objective: 'a continuum from brute force to coercive', for instance. So now we have a model, and we get into a new conflict. Russia threatens to invade Ukrain. So, please fill in beforehand, on a scale of 0 to 100, how coercive/brute-force will this war be?
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
Yes, no problem
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
Although myth has it that the GPL makes a difference between static and dynamic linking, the opinion of the FSF seems to be that to be derivative code, simply means that the code is dependent on the presence of the library. If it is, it is derivative. If not, it's not. So, take for instance SWI-Prolog. The GPL version comes with readline (dynamically linked, but still forcing that version to be GPL). The non-GPL version comes without (dynamic linking suppressed).
However, for your stated goal, all you will do is link against libc and libstd-c++. Both of these have an exemption clause. Just be sure that all other libraries you link against are LGPL or BSD licensed, or otherwise try to buy a license.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
If you are not licensing it under GPL or such, of course you can obfuscate it. Don't see why though, as you are distributing executable, right? If you are forced to open source it due to using GPL code, no, you cannot obfuscate your source.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
Unless you illegally distribute someone else's code, you can't be forced. Can Microsoft be forced to publish their code? Not unless they do something illegal.
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
No, BSD boxes also come GPL libraries, you just have to know what you use.
As with all software development, you have to make sure that if you use 3d party code (be it BSD, GPL, LGPL or proprietary), that you are allowed to do this. Don't use a library if it doesn't give you permission. Static/dynamic linking is not the issue, it is use. Just play it safe and don't use any GPL code that doesn't give an explicit exemption (the necessary libs give that exemption).
For your stated goal -- completely self-contained code that doesn't use any outside libraries except the system ones -- it doesn't matter whether you use Linux or BSD. All changes you need to make to linux to put it on your embedded device should however be open.
And in general, especially if you go the proprietary route: be nice to your free environment, and don't try to leech beyond what is given to you.
After all, they're supposed to be a trusted role model and good influence for our youth.
Not sure when this became fact, but in my day, a teacher was someone that (a) would teach, and (b) would not do unnecessary harm. I probably missed the memo where indoctrinating them to a particular way of life (the parent's responsibility) were offloaded to the teacher.
The real fun part is where Java breaks its golden rule: strings. String: a non-primitive java object, but with an overloaded operator + that appends. Not commutative, works with every type by calling 'toString'.
Yes, sure. I've seen quite a few 'matrix' libraries in java, and each of them is a pain in the neck. First, so you have:
Matrix add(Matrix arg);
So, does this one create a new matrix, or does it modify itself and then return a reference for chaining? Well have to go to the docs. Combined with the weird aversion Java programmers have to create massive libraries of static functions (that could solve the problem)
Then, I want to do a calculation, say, a vectorized:
x = 1 / sqrt(2 * pi) * exp( - 0.5 * x * x )
Note that this is a very simple calculation. The usual stuff done in this space is about 10 times larger.
So, let's look at a few languages.
Java (infatuated-with-objects-version, the default):
x = x.mult(x).mult(0.5).negate().exp().mult( 1 / sqrt(2 * Math.PI) );
I'm sorry, java plainly sucks here, compared with practically anything. I'm sure even Perl's got better syntax.
If Java programmers would finally learn that objects should simply provide the minimal number of members that
would protect the data and use normal regular functions otherwise, this example could almost be safed a bit with:
Java (Slightly saner functional version)
x = Vector.mult(1/sqrt(2*Math.PI), Vector.mult( Vector.exp( Vector.min( Vector.mult(x,x) ))))
Still not pretty, needlessly verbose due to the absence of namespaces (a class can do anything for anybody, right?), and more difficult to check for errors, but it's infinitely better than the previous for which you need to know the semantics of the library intimately, and should be able to read reverse polish notation. Even Lisp is clearer. Of course, due to lacking generics, you'd better generate the code for the static functions by some script, as the sheer number of overloads you need to use scalars, vectors and matrices everywhere would start killing you.
Java has lost the numerical space due to sheer bloodymindedness w.r.t. operator overloading. Oh, and missing value types, no performant 'complex' type possible in Java.
The effect in Java is like every pointer (or object reference or whatever you want to call them) were shared_ptr (except better).
Nope. garbage collection solves one problem, memory management, but does not solve the more general issue of resource management. Incorporating a few file handles, database connections or what you have into Objects in java leads immediately to manual resource management issues. You cannot reflect a couple of resources into an object and have deterministic release behaviour unless you explicitly code for it. Shared pointers (reference counting) does cater for this, albeit at a performance cost. RAII is impossible in Java, yet commonplace in C++, with or without reference counting. They're just different, each with tradeoffs of their own, mkay?
Not really, it's all initially about the countries that started this whole shit. Europe and the USA. Both have a century old history of Co2 pollution and most of the parts per million of CO2 that is causing havoc now is put in there by them. Polluter pays. And mind you, I'm from the 'old' Europe, and we should get cracking here as well. It is just annoying that the USA tends to forget its history when it is convenient. Later we will start worrying about the newcomers, and bust their balls on selling them the technology (if the US doesn't hand it to them just to fill the pockets of a few of their aristocracy^WCEO's).
The whole argument really sounds like an argument where it is necessary to clean up a landfill. The ones that have created the landfill want that the ones that have put their handkerchief in there take an equal share, because they could conceivably put more in it. All that is really pathetic, and the richest country in the world whining that poor people are mean to them is... well, pityfull. Poor fatties.
you have no idea how serious the pollution will become if decisions are going to be made on a "we should be able to emit as much pollution per person as those rich guys over there" basis.
Indeed, yet the decisions made in China and India at this time are exactly based on this reasoning. Spending energy leads to greater prosperity. So what are you going to do about it? Pollute some more to set the target higher?
There are large parts of the world, including India and China, where the question where the next few meals will come from has a particularly stringent urgency; much more urgent than saving the earth for the next decade. Hunger and lack of prospect does that. That the country, that is most obese in every respect, refuses to limit their gorge fest because half-starving people are not willing to stop their search for a better life right at the same time, is quite disturbing.
All patents can do to GPL software is kill it. What patents can do to BSD software is remove the developers right to it, and sell it as if they owned it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm sorry. That record of disagreement would have been destroyed in one of the earlier councils of the Church to be.
I give you Julius Caesar, Augustus, Herod, and countless others in the same timeframe whose history is much more thoroughly documented than the shady figure of Jesus of Nazareth.
Chain-smokers have one very great advantage over your average non-smoking Joe though. They die young. Unlike non-smokers, who will stay alive for tens of years on medications and treatments, until their body finally gives up, the chain smoker will die after a comparatively short and cheap period of illness, most likely while they are still working and paying taxes instead of parasiting on a well-earned pension. If you worry about health-care costs, you should entice people to take up smoking instead of complaining about it.
Don't worry, Libby will get his pardon early 2009. The commute is simply there to prevent him from going to jail in the meantime.
Cheney as president would be a lot better than the situation we have now. Having the puppetmaster take central stage, and thereby taken some responsibility for his actions will not change policy in the slightest. He's deciding on policy now. As a president he doesn't gain power, only exposure. It will be interesting to see if Presidential approval can get into the single digits.
Given that the trip had at least one uphill and one downhill section, he did indeed have to go uphill both ways. That's logic for you ;)
And it's not getting better.
What would your definition of fascism be, if you don't accept these symptoms? Hitler's national socialism? That's just one. Look at Mussolini and Franco, and you'll get a better idea of what is meant by fascism. And no, fascism is not about exterminating Jews (though having scapegoats helps).
Some of them are indeed true to a certain extent for most countries. Most of them aren't, however. Most western European countries I know score about 5 or 6 on this list. The UK maybe 10. The US scores a resounding 14 out of 14 (note that the sexism one also covers abortion and gay rights). Particularly numbers 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are fairly rare on the European continent, though adequately describe the climate in the US.
Read this and weep.
As for efficiency without robots: zap back 40 years, visit a bank or an insurance company, and witness halls filled with 1000-10000 clerks performing routine account operations. I've seen such a place 20 years ago in Indonesia. Come back to the now and see a tiny computer doing that same stuff millions time faster without a single person in the loop. Finance has been radically transformed due to computers, with not a robot in sight.
Given that 80% of the country wanted to 'take out Saddam', regardless of the consequences, and now 70% wants to 'get the hell out of Iraq', again regardless of consequences, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of the American populace has no fucking clue about what their opinion is. Such sheep should not be listened to.
I've heard the rumour that after MIT, CalTech, CMU, Stanford and Berkeley complained in unison that this was idiotic (both to the schedule and that all grant money went to smalltime unis), they were told that apparently their research was not good enough.
I sure wish some of these middle-ware pushers would have wasted some time doing some premature optimization: maybe that would have put some runtime realism in their heads, and some stop on the root of all evil: battling bloat with more bloat.
I don't eat what I wouldn't feel comfortable killing myself. This excludes my pets (but possibly not yours), humans, and lots of endangered species (I don't eat cod and eel anymore for instance). Pigs, cows, horses, sheep, chicken, mussels, the occasional dolphin, small primates: all fair game.
It's even worse than this. The input data to the model is very subjective. Take the type of objective: 'a continuum from brute force to coercive', for instance. So now we have a model, and we get into a new conflict. Russia threatens to invade Ukrain. So, please fill in beforehand, on a scale of 0 to 100, how coercive/brute-force will this war be?
Yes, no problem
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
Although myth has it that the GPL makes a difference between static and dynamic linking, the opinion of the FSF seems to be that to be derivative code, simply means that the code is dependent on the presence of the library. If it is, it is derivative. If not, it's not. So, take for instance SWI-Prolog. The GPL version comes with readline (dynamically linked, but still forcing that version to be GPL). The non-GPL version comes without (dynamic linking suppressed).
However, for your stated goal, all you will do is link against libc and libstd-c++. Both of these have an exemption clause. Just be sure that all other libraries you link against are LGPL or BSD licensed, or otherwise try to buy a license.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
If you are not licensing it under GPL or such, of course you can obfuscate it. Don't see why though, as you are distributing executable, right? If you are forced to open source it due to using GPL code, no, you cannot obfuscate your source.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
Unless you illegally distribute someone else's code, you can't be forced. Can Microsoft be forced to publish their code? Not unless they do something illegal.
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
No, BSD boxes also come GPL libraries, you just have to know what you use.
As with all software development, you have to make sure that if you use 3d party code (be it BSD, GPL, LGPL or proprietary), that you are allowed to do this. Don't use a library if it doesn't give you permission. Static/dynamic linking is not the issue, it is use. Just play it safe and don't use any GPL code that doesn't give an explicit exemption (the necessary libs give that exemption).
For your stated goal -- completely self-contained code that doesn't use any outside libraries except the system ones -- it doesn't matter whether you use Linux or BSD. All changes you need to make to linux to put it on your embedded device should however be open.
And in general, especially if you go the proprietary route: be nice to your free environment, and don't try to leech beyond what is given to you.
Not sure when this became fact, but in my day, a teacher was someone that (a) would teach, and (b) would not do unnecessary harm. I probably missed the memo where indoctrinating them to a particular way of life (the parent's responsibility) were offloaded to the teacher.
The real fun part is where Java breaks its golden rule: strings. String: a non-primitive java object, but with an overloaded operator + that appends. Not commutative, works with every type by calling 'toString'.
So, does this one create a new matrix, or does it modify itself and then return a reference for chaining? Well have to go to the docs. Combined with the weird aversion Java programmers have to create massive libraries of static functions (that could solve the problem)
Then, I want to do a calculation, say, a vectorized:
Note that this is a very simple calculation. The usual stuff done in this space is about 10 times larger. So, let's look at a few languages.
C++
Matlab
Python's numarray
Fortran 90Lisp
Java (infatuated-with-objects-version, the default):
I'm sorry, java plainly sucks here, compared with practically anything. I'm sure even Perl's got better syntax. If Java programmers would finally learn that objects should simply provide the minimal number of members that would protect the data and use normal regular functions otherwise, this example could almost be safed a bit with:
Java (Slightly saner functional version)
Still not pretty, needlessly verbose due to the absence of namespaces (a class can do anything for anybody, right?), and more difficult to check for errors, but it's infinitely better than the previous for which you need to know the semantics of the library intimately, and should be able to read reverse polish notation. Even Lisp is clearer. Of course, due to lacking generics, you'd better generate the code for the static functions by some script, as the sheer number of overloads you need to use scalars, vectors and matrices everywhere would start killing you.
Java has lost the numerical space due to sheer bloodymindedness w.r.t. operator overloading. Oh, and missing value types, no performant 'complex' type possible in Java.
Nope. garbage collection solves one problem, memory management, but does not solve the more general issue of resource management. Incorporating a few file handles, database connections or what you have into Objects in java leads immediately to manual resource management issues. You cannot reflect a couple of resources into an object and have deterministic release behaviour unless you explicitly code for it. Shared pointers (reference counting) does cater for this, albeit at a performance cost. RAII is impossible in Java, yet commonplace in C++, with or without reference counting. They're just different, each with tradeoffs of their own, mkay?
The whole argument really sounds like an argument where it is necessary to clean up a landfill. The ones that have created the landfill want that the ones that have put their handkerchief in there take an equal share, because they could conceivably put more in it. All that is really pathetic, and the richest country in the world whining that poor people are mean to them is ... well, pityfull. Poor fatties.
Indeed, yet the decisions made in China and India at this time are exactly based on this reasoning. Spending energy leads to greater prosperity. So what are you going to do about it? Pollute some more to set the target higher?
There are large parts of the world, including India and China, where the question where the next few meals will come from has a particularly stringent urgency; much more urgent than saving the earth for the next decade. Hunger and lack of prospect does that. That the country, that is most obese in every respect, refuses to limit their gorge fest because half-starving people are not willing to stop their search for a better life right at the same time, is quite disturbing.
True, but this route is a certified way to make BSD code proprietary. In this scenario GPL code would only be killed, not raped and enslaved.
All patents can do to GPL software is kill it. What patents can do to BSD software is remove the developers right to it, and sell it as if they owned it.