Although--since C++ handles increments slightly better in very
specific situations before the variable than after, it should probably be
called ++C. So I guess #C would be... parallel to that... but...
senseless.
This should read: "Although--since I have a shitty C++ compiler, I have to
do micro-ops myself". There is nothing about the C++ language which would
tend itself to performing the post-increment or pre-increment operators
*any* differently unless the value of the operand were used. Micro-ops are
always a bad idea unless you're coding in machine language.
For varying interpretations of "lots". Only a couple dozen actually bothered to get off their fat ass to go down to Microsoft's complex or whatever, IIRC.
If they sample randomly, then it's not terribly important how it's distributed. Of course you can never really sample truly randomly, but you can get pretty close.
Great. osm has some legal trouble, and now every Slashdot spammer this side of Mars has pretend to go through the same thing. I guess pretending to be sued by or blocked by Slashdot is the trendy thing to do in today's junior high schools. Ya! I'm pretending that Slashdot's legal team is suing me! They're such sell-outs! Look at how hypocritical they are! They did something in my imagination that they say is bad! Damn the man!
osm was a good troll. Hell, at least he *was* (is? haven't seen him post for a while) a troll, and not some worthless spammer. But he is not a martyr and making up stories to put Slashdot in a negative light does not make you look any cooler, I doubt even by your spammer friends.
Interesting. It wouldn't be too difficult to change a filesystem (especially on a system where filesystems are user-land) to get something like this. CVS is a pretty complicated system, though, so I wouldn't want to be the one in charge of reimplementing it:D
Metadata is already on some filesystems (I think XFS even). This isn't exactly what you want because files still have filenames, but it's a start
Ya XML seems to be the format-du-jour. AbiWord uses XML pretty effectively. I'm some others will. Just wait a year or so and I'm sure you'll be seeing XML all over the place (perhaps even coming out of your ears and/or wazoo)
You've just described NeXTStep. Take a look at Cocoa or OpenStep (or GNUstep). Cool stuff. The Berlin windowing system seems to be going down this route, too. GNUstep on Berlin: could it get any better?:)
"Go to my games folder"??! I thought files didn't have names:D
Money doesn't really enter into this. The Mozilla project is starting to suck. They should probably know about that (although I'm pretty confident they've heard it all by now, so continued complaining won't accomplish much). If I'm paying them money, all of a sudden I gain the right of hegemony? I don't think so. Money doesn't enter into this at all.
In a world without copyright (and therefore no GPL) there would be nothing to prevent Microsoft from using any and all of the Linux kernel code in their own closed-source products. Without copyright protection, if your code was open, it would have to be public domain.
This is where things get confusing. Why would Microsoft want to take source code from Linux and keep things closed-source? Without copyright law, Microsoft would be unable to sell software per se. They could still print their own CDs and stuff, but there would be competition, since their software could be distributed without restriction, so their prices would remain low. The only reason I can think of for why Microsoft would not release the source code is so that they could have a monopoly on technical support. Judging on Microsoft's past behaviour, I guess this isn't too far fetched, though.
The point is, though, you can't just assume that if copyright were to be abolished, the software industry would carry on as it is. It's RMS's opinion that if there were no copyright (and thus there would be no market for software per se), then software developers would not want to keep their source code hidden: there would be no benefit. It's his opinion that software would be distributed in much the same way that GPL software is distributed today. That's why the GPL is designed the way it is.
Of course you can argue with him. Maybe if there were no copyright law, some people still would keep their code locked up. I can't see any benefit in that, but it's possible.
If they couldn't have purchased all of those CDs then they shouldn't have downloaded the songs from them.
Why not? Consider:
Scenario 1. Jim Schoolboy has $6. Death Band's new CD costs $10. Jim doesn't buy the CD. Death Band gains $0, Jim loses $0, Jim has no Death Band music.
Scenario 2. Jim Schoolboy has $6. Death Band's new CD costs $10. Jim copies Death Band's CD from a friend. Death Band gains $0 and loses $0, Jim loses $0, Jim rocks out to his newly-acquired Death Band music all day.
Personally I like scenario 2. Death Band neither loses nor gains anything, but Jim gains something.
Compare this to your car scenario:
Scenario 1. Larry Alcohol has 10. BMW's new car costs $80000. Larry does $not buy the car. BMW gains nothing, Larry loses $0, Larry uses public transit.
Scenario 2. Larry Alcohol has $10. BMW's new car costs $80000. Larry steals the car from BMW. BMW loses $80000 worth of property, Larry loses $0, Larry has a new BWM.
Notice how in both Scenario #2's, Death Band lost nothing, whereas BMW lost $80000 worth of property? This is why physical property and intellectual property are different. This is also probably why we have come up with different words to describe them: because they're different.
I don't see what's wrong with any of those examples. None of them are a problem per se, only when used in conjunction with a poor society. You can spend a lot of time and effort trying to outlaw something, but it doesn't solve the problems behind it. Does it really matter that I can't get a picture of an 8 year old getting raped if I'm still a person with an intention to harm children?
I think the resources put into outlawing these things would be better put into trying to make them less attractive, possibly through propaganda, or maybe through the creation of a better alternative.
Freenet will have an anonymous search mechanism, but it has not yet been implemented.
It's bandwidth intensive because all downloads get routed through the software? How would you suggest that someone download or upload data? Magic? If you don't want to be a node, don't be a node. This isn't Gnutella here.
"Legal" might be the wrong word. This technology would allow, for instance, people in China to criticise their government easily and effectively. Anonymity is paramount in this case. While this would be technically illegal, the Chinese government would probably be the only people who would find anything wrong with it, and in fact is considered a basic human right by many.
They are including crypto for anonymity purposes, I believe. Including crypto would have nothing to do with being sued anyway. RIAA goon: "Yes, we are suing Mr. Ian Clarke for $82 million." Ian: "But Freenet uses encryption!" Judge: "Case dismissed!"
He didn't say that people shouldn't be swapping files (just as he didn't say that people shouldn't be smoking marijuana). He said that people should not flaunt it. Once the media gets ahold of it, anything will happen. The government listens to the media better than to its constituents, and there's no telling what kind of spin the media are going to put on it, so it's best to just swap and shut up about it.
He didn't mention current at all; where are you getting that from? He's summing two measurements of 'hunger' to give a final total in 'hunger'. This, though, does seem a little bit strange, since hunger is usually subjective.
Because often times, if the target buffer is just a concatenation of other strings, e.g.: sprintf(foo, "hello %s, happy %s-%s, %s",...), 'foo' is a dynamically allocated buffer, and the length of that buffer was calculated by the strlen()s of the strings that are going into it.
Even when dealing with numbers (%d, etc.), if it's a constant format string, you can determine the length of the string. The expressions for calculating that can get complicated, but they should be calculated at compile-time and so won't be expensive. If you're using field-with dealies (e.g. %05d), it's even easier:).
The point is that it's usually very easy to calculate the length of the string needed. For strings, use strlen() unless you know the length of the string at compile-time. For numbers, a bit of math is needed. These will usually be much faster than a corresponding snprintf() call.
Right. The press release and the article on PC Format imply some contradictions as to how it's going to be licenced. At first I thought that Josie Pearson (referenced at the bottom of the article) was adding an addendum, as in "well before we thought we'd just licence it to game companies, but now we've decided to release it as open source". Uponfurther reading, though, it sounds like maybe it's going to be an NPL-ish licence. Everyone can get the source for free, but there are a lot of restrictions or redistribution and whatnot, and Discreet gets the rights to all the changes made to it. Hopefully it's not going to be SCSL-ish, as then it would be almost useless.
Almost certainly not. I don't think Discreet itself is going to be doing any porting, only feature-stripping, so seeing as 3D Studio Max is not available for Linux, gMax probably won't be either.
As I mentioned before, though, I'm sure there will be hundreds (or more) Linux people itching to port it over themselves, so it's all a matter of whether they like the licence or not.
The press release seemed to imply that gMAX will be released for the same platforms that Studio Max is already, which I believe would leave Linux out of the loop. Though if they pick a good licence, it hopefully won't take long to port over.
Are you sure it's a minority? IINM, the whole music industry is currently marketed towards immature people. Well maybe still a technical minority, but quite substantial nonetheless. High school kiddies listen to a lot of music.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yes. Very true. I forgot about those satanic overloaded operators. Hopefully they're inlined anyway, though :D.
Uhh the point of his post is that C# doesn't offer anything *new*.
This should read: "Although--since I have a shitty C++ compiler, I have to do micro-ops myself". There is nothing about the C++ language which would tend itself to performing the post-increment or pre-increment operators *any* differently unless the value of the operand were used. Micro-ops are always a bad idea unless you're coding in machine language.
For varying interpretations of "lots". Only a couple dozen actually bothered to get off their fat ass to go down to Microsoft's complex or whatever, IIRC.
Wrong. The Nova did not flop in Mexico; in fact it did very well, despite its name.
If they sample randomly, then it's not terribly important how it's distributed. Of course you can never really sample truly randomly, but you can get pretty close.
Great. osm has some legal trouble, and now every Slashdot spammer this side of Mars has pretend to go through the same thing. I guess pretending to be sued by or blocked by Slashdot is the trendy thing to do in today's junior high schools. Ya! I'm pretending that Slashdot's legal team is suing me! They're such sell-outs! Look at how hypocritical they are! They did something in my imagination that they say is bad! Damn the man!
osm was a good troll. Hell, at least he *was* (is? haven't seen him post for a while) a troll, and not some worthless spammer. But he is not a martyr and making up stories to put Slashdot in a negative light does not make you look any cooler, I doubt even by your spammer friends.
Good night.
Why couldn't it be? It's part of their trade. It's a secret. Voila: it's a trade secret.
ITYM spammed.
Money doesn't really enter into this. The Mozilla project is starting to suck. They should probably know about that (although I'm pretty confident they've heard it all by now, so continued complaining won't accomplish much). If I'm paying them money, all of a sudden I gain the right of hegemony? I don't think so. Money doesn't enter into this at all.
This is where things get confusing. Why would Microsoft want to take source code from Linux and keep things closed-source? Without copyright law, Microsoft would be unable to sell software per se. They could still print their own CDs and stuff, but there would be competition, since their software could be distributed without restriction, so their prices would remain low. The only reason I can think of for why Microsoft would not release the source code is so that they could have a monopoly on technical support. Judging on Microsoft's past behaviour, I guess this isn't too far fetched, though.
The point is, though, you can't just assume that if copyright were to be abolished, the software industry would carry on as it is. It's RMS's opinion that if there were no copyright (and thus there would be no market for software per se), then software developers would not want to keep their source code hidden: there would be no benefit. It's his opinion that software would be distributed in much the same way that GPL software is distributed today. That's why the GPL is designed the way it is.
Of course you can argue with him. Maybe if there were no copyright law, some people still would keep their code locked up. I can't see any benefit in that, but it's possible.
Why not? Consider:
Scenario 1. Jim Schoolboy has $6. Death Band's new CD costs $10. Jim doesn't buy the CD. Death Band gains $0, Jim loses $0, Jim has no Death Band music.
Scenario 2. Jim Schoolboy has $6. Death Band's new CD costs $10. Jim copies Death Band's CD from a friend. Death Band gains $0 and loses $0, Jim loses $0, Jim rocks out to his newly-acquired Death Band music all day.
Personally I like scenario 2. Death Band neither loses nor gains anything, but Jim gains something.
Compare this to your car scenario:
Scenario 1. Larry Alcohol has 10. BMW's new car costs $80000. Larry does $not buy the car. BMW gains nothing, Larry loses $0, Larry uses public transit.
Scenario 2. Larry Alcohol has $10. BMW's new car costs $80000. Larry steals the car from BMW. BMW loses $80000 worth of property, Larry loses $0, Larry has a new BWM.
Notice how in both Scenario #2's, Death Band lost nothing, whereas BMW lost $80000 worth of property? This is why physical property and intellectual property are different. This is also probably why we have come up with different words to describe them: because they're different.
Who cares?
You cannot get hurt by buying drugs per se. You cannot get hurt by illegally trading music per se.
You *can* get hurt by using drugs. You *can* get hurt by listening to music (you could develop tinnitus, for example).
Now that the analogy fits, don't you see how useless it is?
I don't see what's wrong with any of those examples. None of them are a problem per se, only when used in conjunction with a poor society. You can spend a lot of time and effort trying to outlaw something, but it doesn't solve the problems behind it. Does it really matter that I can't get a picture of an 8 year old getting raped if I'm still a person with an intention to harm children?
I think the resources put into outlawing these things would be better put into trying to make them less attractive, possibly through propaganda, or maybe through the creation of a better alternative.
He didn't say that people shouldn't be swapping files (just as he didn't say that people shouldn't be smoking marijuana). He said that people should not flaunt it. Once the media gets ahold of it, anything will happen. The government listens to the media better than to its constituents, and there's no telling what kind of spin the media are going to put on it, so it's best to just swap and shut up about it.
He didn't mention current at all; where are you getting that from? He's summing two measurements of 'hunger' to give a final total in 'hunger'. This, though, does seem a little bit strange, since hunger is usually subjective.
Because often times, if the target buffer is just a concatenation of other strings, e.g.: sprintf(foo, "hello %s, happy %s-%s, %s", ...), 'foo' is a dynamically allocated buffer, and the length of that buffer was calculated by the strlen()s of the strings that are going into it.
:).
Even when dealing with numbers (%d, etc.), if it's a constant format string, you can determine the length of the string. The expressions for calculating that can get complicated, but they should be calculated at compile-time and so won't be expensive. If you're using field-with dealies (e.g. %05d), it's even easier
The point is that it's usually very easy to calculate the length of the string needed. For strings, use strlen() unless you know the length of the string at compile-time. For numbers, a bit of math is needed. These will usually be much faster than a corresponding snprintf() call.
Or they could just buy fewer copies of it?
Right. The press release and the article on PC Format imply some contradictions as to how it's going to be licenced. At first I thought that Josie Pearson (referenced at the bottom of the article) was adding an addendum, as in "well before we thought we'd just licence it to game companies, but now we've decided to release it as open source". Uponfurther reading, though, it sounds like maybe it's going to be an NPL-ish licence. Everyone can get the source for free, but there are a lot of restrictions or redistribution and whatnot, and Discreet gets the rights to all the changes made to it. Hopefully it's not going to be SCSL-ish, as then it would be almost useless.
Almost certainly not. I don't think Discreet itself is going to be doing any porting, only feature-stripping, so seeing as 3D Studio Max is not available for Linux, gMax probably won't be either.
As I mentioned before, though, I'm sure there will be hundreds (or more) Linux people itching to port it over themselves, so it's all a matter of whether they like the licence or not.
The press release seemed to imply that gMAX will be released for the same platforms that Studio Max is already, which I believe would leave Linux out of the loop. Though if they pick a good licence, it hopefully won't take long to port over.
Tampered with? Huh? No one said anything about changing and rebroadcasting any packets.
Are you sure it's a minority? IINM, the whole music industry is currently marketed towards immature people. Well maybe still a technical minority, but quite substantial nonetheless. High school kiddies listen to a lot of music.