I believe there's an implicit partial definition in there.
1) Cool is the opposite of uncool. 2) You are uncool if you attempt to define cool.
and you'll probably never know why Clearly untrue. I know why both of us are uncool, for example.
I always thought that cool mean "dispassionate", i.e., the opposite of hotblooded. Does it not fit? Spock was cool, and Kirk was not. Fits well, I think.
Why should cool mean "admirable in an undefinable way." We have more than enough other words like that.
I might generally agree with you except I recently watched the latest round of American Idol auditions. Heh. A lot of it is mindless drivel, but it's still beyond the grasp of 98% of the people out there that want to be professional singers or song writers.
Your sample source if flawed. American Idol is finding the top singers who: 1) Have no professional experience 2) Have no formal training
Anyone who's made it to the age of 18, has a talent for singing, and yet doesn't have some formal music training is already musically messed up, and pretty rare, too. Of course they can't find many good people. They eliminate them right off the bat so that they can make it seem like 98% of the people out there can only produce crap.
There are good musicians everywhere. I'd say that your figure is probably a good one, but measured against the whole population. 98% of the people in the world can only produce crap. One person out of every fifty is good enough to make a living making music at the level of current pop musicians if they so chose.
When you've done all that to XHTML, you've now included MathML, SVG, PNG,..
How do you store tracking information?
You don't store tracking info in the pages. Store your document in subversion if you want that, or use a diff-based file system. There's no good reason to abstract this to the level of document standard. It isn't a part of any other document standard, and it doesn't need to be a part of this one.
How do you store equations? MathML How do you store an index? Anchor tags
How do you make links that will change? Depending on what you mean, use EMCAScript, or use relative linking.
Line drawings? SVG
I believe I did mention those things that would have to be added that aren't already part of HTML. With the exception of MathML, those things are *already* part of the existing standard.
ODF *is* what you'd get if you did what you asked for.
No, ODF is not written in XHTML. It does not encompass the page flow stuff built in to existing HTML parsers, nor the vast collection of code written to support them. It doesn't support CSS. It absolutely isn't the same thing at all.
It's what you get if you wanted to build what we're talking about off of Star Office instead of building it off of HTML.
Wouldn't it make more sense to exploit the extensibility of XML and have multiple levels or modules of the spec like XHTML?
Wouldn't it make more sense to just add new properties to CSS3 and just use XHTML?
I've never entirely understood the need for either format.
If we can specify every aspect of page layout with CSS3, then we can do everything with HTML that we can do with word processor docs. If we add page transition style definitions, we've got presentation docs covered. Add MathML and we have spreadsheets covered, and if we round that out with SVG, then charting is covered.
Isn't this more well-defined, simpler, and more accessible than either standard?
Well built applications didn't suffer, but poor built ones and ones that used short-cuts and quick-and-dirty coding techniques would often fail. Like the proper ways to call DLLs and the lazy way some people do it would break apps in SP2.
I take it you don't use any applications that require access to hardware that doesn't have a Windows driver model for it, or for which the Windows driver is crappy (such as, for example, sound cards and cameras)?
Those have perfect excuses for not working in Vista. But the other point is forward compatibility.
I've tried a lot of the.Net 3.5 libraries on 2.0 using Windows 2000...and they all work. Microsoft is now reaching the point where they're forcing upgrades just to force upgrades. Despite the fact that the computer that you now own should *always* be powerful enough to run the latest webcam, word processor, browser, and GUI (and even do amazing things with Virtual Machines), and could easily support the latest apps that do these kinds of things faster and better, you can't be sure that you'll be able to use it for that forever.
You may have to throw it away simply because the monopoly that makes most of the software on it won't sell you what you want from them - better apps.
Seems like as a monopoly they shouldn't be allowed to do this kind of collusion...
What they're doing is synthesizing excited bromide in an argon matrix. It's an excimer frozen in its excited state.
It's a chemical laser but in solid, not gaseous, form. Put simply, in deference to you, Escort Wagon, it's like lasing a stick of dynamite. As soon as they apply a field, they couple to a state that is radiatively coupled to the ground state. I figure they can extract at least 10 to the 21st photons per cubic centimeter which will give one kilojoule per cubic centimeter at 600 nanometers, or, one megajoule per liter.
Which is, of course, hotter than the sun and much more efficient than fluorescents.
It's only $44.95 a month. That's just pennies a day. Surely this Convenience Intices you!
Pornography and online gaming at hundreds of times the speed of your normal advertising service provider!
It's so easy to use, and the surgery to implant it in the base of your skull is so painless, it's no wonder I'm number one!
Sign up for the thirty day trial. You must have to have it for thirty days! unlimited hours, over an extremely limited amount of time. telephones? HA! HA! HA! how primitive!!! Live streaming Broadbrain! Instant pestering for only an additional $9.95 a month! Don't be left in the digital dust! Sign up now to receive emails about specials and updates, and emails about other emails! -
I'm not sure that anyone really cares about what the instruction set for a handheld device is, since the operating systems for handheld devices has been relatively chip-agnostic.
I'd really like to know where you're getting this. IIRC Pocket PC runs on only three chipsets, Windows CE.Net on one, Symbian on three, and Palm OS on two (sort of...). The only thing that I know of that comes close is Linux, and it's only mostly chipset agnostic because everything is written to run GCC, and GCC has been written to compile to anything. But then of course, you generally have to write drivers for whatever supporting chips you want unless you use the one that the driver write. As far as applications go, the only one that I know of that will run on everything is Opera. Everything else seems pretty specific to the architecture chosen.
Of those, AFIAK, the mechanisms used to write drivers/applications is *extremely* varied. You can't write an app for one and have it work on any of the others (except with the linux apps...an X or GTK desktop app might work on a linux handheld if it can handle the reduced screen real-estate.
This all comes from my own observations, rather than from specific knowledge of the industry. Am I wrong about any of this? And if so, why do you see the same chipsets over and over tied to a specific OS? Why are newer, more powerful or cheaper chipsets employed so infrequently in new embedded devices?
Even VB.Net developers question why they use VB and why they don't just learn C#. Porting Perl, Python or any other language as a.Net language is pointless as they cease to have the differences that actually made them relevant.
While you're right about the difference between C# and VB (negligible), you're wrong about.Net in general. Try Boo or Scala. They don't work at all the way that C#/VB do.
The answer's easy: ditch the platform when the costs of maintaining it become greater than the cost of switching. That answer's so easy, in fact, that it's pointless to ask slashdot about it, bring it up in conversation, or even think about it for more than 2 minutes.
That's way off.
Switch when you think that you can minimize the overall cost of switching once you've realized that these two conditions are met: 1) the technology that you rely upon is going to become obsolete 2) the technology requires humans to operate & maintain it.
Once you realize that is the case, you *know* there's going to be a point where the cost of maintaining will be extremely high compared to your competitors, but the cost of replacing *will also* be extremely high. You don't want to ever wait until you're in that situation. That will kill your business. For example right now would not be a good time to switch your bank system away from Cobol. It would have been better to do that 20 years ago when there were a lot more people working on the cobol languages, and a lot more banks making the switch. The cost of doing so was much less, and you know that the technology was going to be obsolete even then. You try it today and you have to pay through the nose.
If you're really smart about it, you'll incrementally switch so that you're never extremely obsolete (because slightly obsolete is extremely cheap to change). Then, *possibly* you can live by the idea that you're spouting. But not everybody can do that because a lot of systems are indivisible.
Looks like it costs about $40 more. For $80 we can double it.
It has no dvd-rw drive, no hard drive...and for those rare moments that you need those things you can connect to a NAS or USB based device. That's not actually expensive either. Buying all those things is less than the price of the computer you're talking about buying, and you don't have to carry them around when you're not using them (which, for me is most of the time).
To take genesis literally, you have to deny the existance of summer and winter as we have yearly tree rings and glacier layers dating further back than 6000 years.
Genesis has no mention of an origin date. So you could still take it literally.
The only way to take it as truth is to take the world as a complete fraud, all of it. Certainly an almighty being could do that, but then I'd feel more like I was in some teenager's ant farm than under the protection of some loving divine.
I think that this addresses your comment quite nicely. In the original language Genesis is written in a style halfway between poetry and prose...kind of like the Odyssey. It is easier to tell what to take literally, and what to consider metaphor in the original.
A lot of scholars believe that Genesis doesn't really make many extremely bold claims about the origins of life beyond the fact that God created the world and that there is an order in which he did it moving from the simple to the complex.
If you have to engage in bigotry that really is very cutting, that would be a better place for you to start. I understand what you were going with, though. Bigots traditionally start from a position of ignorance and the start making wild claims to defame those they wish to accuse, and you wouldn't want to break tradition.
Of course, you might find out that other people actually have valid points of view, which I'm sure will be disturbing for your faith, but I bet you can manage. Plenty of Christians pull their heads out of the sand and learn about the world around them, and they seem to be okay after that.
who acts as the trusted introducer between the site operator and the public
You're looking at this wrong. A password is the way by which a party is authenticated. It's like one half of a key exchange. Trust is not required at that point, only auth. This distinction has been mathematically established by the cryptographic community. It is possible to transmit auth while transmitting absolutely no other information.
I digress, though.
All three just happen to have an element of pubkey in them. All three of the methods require that you establish trust ahead of time. That's not really hard to do. E-mail the pubkeys with PGP. It's really hard to do a man-in-the-middle attack on that.
Agree about ray tracing, but crypto is very relevant. If you aren't using javascript md5 in your login page, then your password is wizzing around the internet in plain text - not a good idea.
Only if you don't use https, or NTLM, or Kerberos (all browser supported mechanism that don't require javascript). Depending on javascript for encryption is silly.
MD5 is extremely broken for passing passwords about.
Re:That's a pretty big job
on
Open US GPS Data?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I work at a GIS company. Keep in mind that there's USGS, and that's not the only source of public maps (though that particular source isn't really focused on making navigation easier).
Most states are now working on providing a unified system for people to put their map info into (currently the best source of maps is counties and property appraisers - both of which can easily be mandated to upload their data if it doesn't cost them much).
So give it time. In the US this will become something provided as a government service, and the only people selling things will be the ones writing software that analyzes the data.
Art existed long before copyright did -- but was paid for by a sponsoring patron.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of....
Sorry. Got of track there for a moment. Beowulf wasn't patron sponsored. It was just a tale that people liked. I could probably come up with a lot more like that, but there wasn't a lot of literacy before copyright, so it's hard without being a prof of middle and old English (and IANAPMOE).
are not truly identical a no-brainer to the experts
Maybe it's because they know the rate of mutation for the human race (which seems like it should predict how likely errors that can cause disorders are to occur)? Maybe because they know a lot about the mechanisms to keep errors from occurring? Maybe this particular effect doesn't happen as much for non-twins?
That's pretty much completely wrong. YAML's functionality is a superset of XMLs while being easier to read & understand (because the *basic* usage of it is exactly the same as XML's, but with a simpler syntax). It just hasn't been adopted anywhere except configuration because that's the easiest niche to move into.
it's just another syntax to learn.
That's a stupid thing to say. Anybody that can't learn the syntax of either XML or YAML in less than five minutes shouldn't be working with either of them. They're both ridiculously simple to understand.
It needs a completely new infrastructure: new parsers, new editors, new schema description language, new translation languages and so on.
That is true, and probably the reason we won't be moving to YAML for quite a while.
In defense of XML, the parsing problem is handled.
To me that says that XML handles a problem that wasn't there. Parsing problem for pretty much everything is almost universally solved by regex...
I don't really care about the XML format. Personally, I'd be happier if it were stored in binary. The thing I like is the DOM tree as a data construct, XPath as a means of addressing, and XQuery as a means of getting parts out of it. (XSLT is okay, but from my experience, it's a lot clearer to represent a transformation as a series of productions than it is to use XSLT...perhaps a production-oriented approach that used XPath addressing?)
With those, you've got a good mechanism for serializing, reading, and deserializing objects, classes, and all manner of other things.
There are only a few problems with this: 1) Non-ancestor relationships and references (i.e., having the same node as multiple locations in the XML document) are not covered by XML, but are possible with objects.
2) Attributes in XML have no obvious mapping to objects...so what do you do with them?
I wish we could use something like XML (in that it could use DTDs as schemas, and had support for DOM methods along with XQuery and XPath), but with a more effecient format (binary), and with the ability to encode references.
An artist can choose his distribution model. If he wants to freely distribute it and make his money on concerts, the can go with a creative commons license and be done with it. If he chooses a different scheme, that is his choice.
Can an artist distribute by having armed men broadcast his music in public areas and then charge for the pleasure of listening, for example? No. There are limits to what an artist is allowed to do. There's a certain amount beyond which he is not allowed to trample on the rights of others in the manner that he distributes it (and in this case, I define "right" as "permission to do something that I am able to do"). He is not allowed, for example, to keep me from letting others listen to it in my presence, or to keep me from transferring that right to someone else.
Mostly because doing otherwise is generally considered absurd. I don't have to listen to my CD through headphones only, and I'm allowed to sell it. Whether or not you agree that this is true, there are some important points here:
1) Artists don't have exclusive control over how they distribute. The only thing that they have ultimate control over is whether or not they choose to do so in the first place. 2) Expanding the control over the distribution means decreasing the rights of the recipients of the media. 3) The line drawn with regard to mutually exclusive rights (such as rights of distribution) are determined by law (i.e., supposedly by public decision), not by something set into the foundation of humanity.
As the creator, he has the freedom of choice and it is not our right to dictate to him how he goes about it. If we don't like his terms, we can simple not listen to his music.
I don't believe he has that freedom. You presuppose that #3 is being done correctly, or that it's some sort of right inherently granted to the creator that would therefore be immoral.
Nobody has put a gun to our heads and forced us to listen to Purple Rain....and I wake up every morning with a smile on my face because I know that it will be yet another day where I don't have to listen to Purple Rain.
Most aircraft designs can, accepting for inertia (i.e., if you make a model of an airplane the size of a swallow, and then try to fly it around a corner, it'll do what the swallow can; a 747 sized swallow wouldn't be able to go around corners like a tiny one).
While we're on this, though, a better comparison would be hummingbirds vs. tiny UAVs. I'm pretty sure the hummingbirds are doing a better job not hitting things as they go about their sugar gathering missions than the UAVs are doing whatever they do.
I can guarantee you he was not loving it. I'd bet that the first emotion that he felt was anger at whatever caused the initial deviation from normal flight, followed by shock and apprehension in the final seconds once he realized he was in serious trouble.
You may be wrong about "what he loved" is referring to.
I personally, would be quite happy to die in a fiery explosion that produced a crater big enough to be visible from the moon. That'd be sweet (as long as no one else got hurt)! In that case, crashing wouldn't be what I loved, but making a crater would be.
"Doing what he loved" in some cases might also refer to some recreational pharmaceuticals and individuals of negotiable affection (though probably not in this case). I mean, with those involved, you might not actually notice you crashed until the ground rises up and smites you.
Slashdot Mirror
Any attempts to do so peg you as uncool
I believe there's an implicit partial definition in there.
1) Cool is the opposite of uncool.
2) You are uncool if you attempt to define cool.
and you'll probably never know why
Clearly untrue. I know why both of us are uncool, for example.
I always thought that cool mean "dispassionate", i.e., the opposite of hotblooded. Does it not fit?
Spock was cool, and Kirk was not. Fits well, I think.
Why should cool mean "admirable in an undefinable way." We have more than enough other words like that.
I might generally agree with you except I recently watched the latest round of American Idol auditions. Heh. A lot of it is mindless drivel, but it's still beyond the grasp of 98% of the people out there that want to be professional singers or song writers.
Your sample source if flawed. American Idol is finding the top singers who:
1) Have no professional experience
2) Have no formal training
Anyone who's made it to the age of 18, has a talent for singing, and yet doesn't have some formal music training is already musically messed up, and pretty rare, too. Of course they can't find many good people. They eliminate them right off the bat so that they can make it seem like 98% of the people out there can only produce crap.
There are good musicians everywhere. I'd say that your figure is probably a good one, but measured against the whole population. 98% of the people in the world can only produce crap. One person out of every fifty is good enough to make a living making music at the level of current pop musicians if they so chose.
When you've done all that to XHTML, you've now included MathML, SVG, PNG, ..
How do you store tracking information?
You don't store tracking info in the pages. Store your document in subversion if you want that, or use a diff-based file system. There's no good reason to abstract this to the level of document standard. It isn't a part of any other document standard, and it doesn't need to be a part of this one.
How do you store equations?
MathML
How do you store an index?
Anchor tags
How do you make links that will change?
Depending on what you mean, use EMCAScript, or use relative linking.
Line drawings?
SVG
I believe I did mention those things that would have to be added that aren't already part of HTML. With the exception of MathML, those things are *already* part of the existing standard.
ODF *is* what you'd get if you did what you asked for.
No, ODF is not written in XHTML. It does not encompass the page flow stuff built in to existing HTML parsers, nor the vast collection of code written to support them. It doesn't support CSS. It absolutely isn't the same thing at all.
It's what you get if you wanted to build what we're talking about off of Star Office instead of building it off of HTML.
Wouldn't it make more sense to exploit the extensibility of XML and have multiple levels or modules of the spec like XHTML?
Wouldn't it make more sense to just add new properties to CSS3 and just use XHTML?
I've never entirely understood the need for either format.
If we can specify every aspect of page layout with CSS3, then we can do everything with HTML that we can do with word processor docs. If we add page transition style definitions, we've got presentation docs covered. Add MathML and we have spreadsheets covered, and if we round that out with SVG, then charting is covered.
Isn't this more well-defined, simpler, and more accessible than either standard?
Well built applications didn't suffer, but poor built ones and ones that used short-cuts and quick-and-dirty coding techniques would often fail. Like the proper ways to call DLLs and the lazy way some people do it would break apps in SP2.
.Net 3.5 libraries on 2.0 using Windows 2000...and they all work. Microsoft is now reaching the point where they're forcing upgrades just to force upgrades. Despite the fact that the computer that you now own should *always* be powerful enough to run the latest webcam, word processor, browser, and GUI (and even do amazing things with Virtual Machines), and could easily support the latest apps that do these kinds of things faster and better, you can't be sure that you'll be able to use it for that forever.
I take it you don't use any applications that require access to hardware that doesn't have a Windows driver model for it, or for which the Windows driver is crappy (such as, for example, sound cards and cameras)?
Those have perfect excuses for not working in Vista. But the other point is forward compatibility.
I've tried a lot of the
You may have to throw it away simply because the monopoly that makes most of the software on it won't sell you what you want from them - better apps.
Seems like as a monopoly they shouldn't be allowed to do this kind of collusion...
I don't think you understand everything.
What they're doing is synthesizing excited bromide in an argon matrix. It's an excimer frozen in its excited state.
It's a chemical laser but in solid, not gaseous, form. Put simply, in deference to you, Escort Wagon, it's like lasing a stick of dynamite. As soon as they apply a field, they couple to a state that is radiatively coupled to the ground state. I figure they can extract at least 10 to the 21st photons per cubic centimeter which will give one kilojoule per cubic centimeter at 600 nanometers, or, one megajoule per liter.
Which is, of course, hotter than the sun and much more efficient than fluorescents.
It's only $44.95 a month. That's just pennies a day. Surely this Convenience Intices you!
Pornography and online gaming at hundreds of times the speed of your normal advertising service provider!
It's so easy to use, and the surgery to implant it in the base of your skull is so painless, it's no wonder I'm number one!
Sign up for the thirty day trial. You must have to have it for thirty days! unlimited hours, over an extremely limited amount of time. telephones? HA! HA! HA! how primitive!!! Live streaming Broadbrain! Instant pestering for only an additional $9.95 a month! Don't be left in the digital dust! Sign up now to receive emails about specials and updates, and emails about other emails! -
I'm not sure that anyone really cares about what the instruction set for a handheld device is, since the operating systems for handheld devices has been relatively chip-agnostic.
I'd really like to know where you're getting this.
IIRC Pocket PC runs on only three chipsets, Windows CE.Net on one, Symbian on three, and Palm OS on two (sort of...).
The only thing that I know of that comes close is Linux, and it's only mostly chipset agnostic because everything is written to run GCC, and GCC has been written to compile to anything. But then of course, you generally have to write drivers for whatever supporting chips you want unless you use the one that the driver write. As far as applications go, the only one that I know of that will run on everything is Opera. Everything else seems pretty specific to the architecture chosen.
Of those, AFIAK, the mechanisms used to write drivers/applications is *extremely* varied. You can't write an app for one and have it work on any of the others (except with the linux apps...an X or GTK desktop app might work on a linux handheld if it can handle the reduced screen real-estate.
This all comes from my own observations, rather than from specific knowledge of the industry. Am I wrong about any of this? And if so, why do you see the same chipsets over and over tied to a specific OS? Why are newer, more powerful or cheaper chipsets employed so infrequently in new embedded devices?
Even VB.Net developers question why they use VB and why they don't just learn C#. Porting Perl, Python or any other language as a .Net language is pointless as they cease to have the differences that actually made them relevant.
.Net in general. Try Boo or Scala. They don't work at all the way that C#/VB do.
While you're right about the difference between C# and VB (negligible), you're wrong about
The answer's easy: ditch the platform when the costs of maintaining it become greater than the cost of switching. That answer's so easy, in fact, that it's pointless to ask slashdot about it, bring it up in conversation, or even think about it for more than 2 minutes.
That's way off.
Switch when you think that you can minimize the overall cost of switching once you've realized that these two conditions are met:
1) the technology that you rely upon is going to become obsolete
2) the technology requires humans to operate & maintain it.
Once you realize that is the case, you *know* there's going to be a point where the cost of maintaining will be extremely high compared to your competitors, but the cost of replacing *will also* be extremely high. You don't want to ever wait until you're in that situation. That will kill your business. For example right now would not be a good time to switch your bank system away from Cobol. It would have been better to do that 20 years ago when there were a lot more people working on the cobol languages, and a lot more banks making the switch.
The cost of doing so was much less, and you know that the technology was going to be obsolete even then. You try it today and you have to pay through the nose.
If you're really smart about it, you'll incrementally switch so that you're never extremely obsolete (because slightly obsolete is extremely cheap to change). Then, *possibly* you can live by the idea that you're spouting. But not everybody can do that because a lot of systems are indivisible.
The other side of this that you're missing is that power sellers can move to Amazon marketplace if Ebay gives them too many problems.
So ebay needs to behave or they'll lose those people entirely.
It costs $500 to get a Eee with only 8gb.
...and for those rare moments that you need those things you can connect to a NAS or USB based device. That's not actually expensive either. Buying all those things is less than the price of the computer you're talking about buying, and you don't have to carry them around when you're not using them (which, for me is most of the time).
Looks like it costs about $40 more. For $80 we can double it.
It has no dvd-rw drive, no hard drive
To take genesis literally, you have to deny the existance of summer and winter as we have yearly tree rings and glacier layers dating further back than 6000 years.
Genesis has no mention of an origin date. So you could still take it literally.
The only way to take it as truth is to take the world as a complete fraud, all of it. Certainly an almighty being could do that, but then I'd feel more like I was in some teenager's ant farm than under the protection of some loving divine.
I think that this addresses your comment quite nicely. In the original language Genesis is written in a style halfway between poetry and prose...kind of like the Odyssey. It is easier to tell what to take literally, and what to consider metaphor in the original.
A lot of scholars believe that Genesis doesn't really make many extremely bold claims about the origins of life beyond the fact that God created the world and that there is an order in which he did it moving from the simple to the complex.
If you have to engage in bigotry that really is very cutting, that would be a better place for you to start. I understand what you were going with, though. Bigots traditionally start from a position of ignorance and the start making wild claims to defame those they wish to accuse, and you wouldn't want to break tradition.
Of course, you might find out that other people actually have valid points of view, which I'm sure will be disturbing for your faith, but I bet you can manage. Plenty of Christians pull their heads out of the sand and learn about the world around them, and they seem to be okay after that.
who acts as the trusted introducer between the site operator and the public
You're looking at this wrong. A password is the way by which a party is authenticated. It's like one half of a key exchange.
Trust is not required at that point, only auth. This distinction has been mathematically established by the cryptographic community. It is possible to transmit auth while transmitting absolutely no other information.
I digress, though.
All three just happen to have an element of pubkey in them. All three of the methods require that you establish trust ahead of time. That's not really hard to do. E-mail the pubkeys with PGP. It's really hard to do a man-in-the-middle attack on that.
Agree about ray tracing, but crypto is very relevant. If you aren't using javascript md5 in your login page, then your password is wizzing around the internet in plain text - not a good idea.
Only if you don't use https, or NTLM, or Kerberos (all browser supported mechanism that don't require javascript). Depending on javascript for encryption is silly.
MD5 is extremely broken for passing passwords about.
I work at a GIS company.
Keep in mind that there's USGS, and that's not the only source of public maps (though that particular source isn't really focused on making navigation easier).
Most states are now working on providing a unified system for people to put their map info into (currently the best source of maps is counties and property appraisers - both of which can easily be mandated to upload their data if it doesn't cost them much).
So give it time. In the US this will become something provided as a government service, and the only people selling things will be the ones writing software that analyzes the data.
Art existed long before copyright did -- but was paid for by a sponsoring patron.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of....
Sorry. Got of track there for a moment. Beowulf wasn't patron sponsored. It was just a tale that people liked. I could probably come up with a lot more like that, but there wasn't a lot of literacy before copyright, so it's hard without being a prof of middle and old English (and IANAPMOE).
are not truly identical a no-brainer to the experts
Maybe it's because they know the rate of mutation for the human race (which seems like it should predict how likely errors that can cause disorders are to occur)?
Maybe because they know a lot about the mechanisms to keep errors from occurring?
Maybe this particular effect doesn't happen as much for non-twins?
I'd do: .* ...and run it recursively if I knew that this was a possibility built in to the language that I needed to address.
Of course...that almost never comes up.
regex=FSM. Languages that include regex!=FSM.
Regex+Languages that include regex=>parsing made extremely simple.
But not all languages are regular languages to be described by regular expressions. Is there a standardized form of confrex or consenex
This is a red herring.
No, not all natural languages are regular, and even most computer languages are not regular.
But I'm pretty sure that all languages (or to go more primitive, algebras) that can be expressed as XML can be parsed by a regular expression.
Can you disprove this?
In other words, it can not replace XML
That's pretty much completely wrong. YAML's functionality is a superset of XMLs while being easier to read & understand (because the *basic* usage of it is exactly the same as XML's, but with a simpler syntax). It just hasn't been adopted anywhere except configuration because that's the easiest niche to move into.
it's just another syntax to learn.
That's a stupid thing to say. Anybody that can't learn the syntax of either XML or YAML in less than five minutes shouldn't be working with either of them. They're both ridiculously simple to understand.
It needs a completely new infrastructure: new parsers, new editors, new schema description language, new translation languages and so on.
That is true, and probably the reason we won't be moving to YAML for quite a while.
In defense of XML, the parsing problem is handled.
To me that says that XML handles a problem that wasn't there. Parsing problem for pretty much everything is almost universally solved by regex...
I don't really care about the XML format. Personally, I'd be happier if it were stored in binary. The thing I like is the DOM tree as a data construct, XPath as a means of addressing, and XQuery as a means of getting parts out of it. (XSLT is okay, but from my experience, it's a lot clearer to represent a transformation as a series of productions than it is to use XSLT...perhaps a production-oriented approach that used XPath addressing?)
With those, you've got a good mechanism for serializing, reading, and deserializing objects, classes, and all manner of other things.
There are only a few problems with this:
1) Non-ancestor relationships and references (i.e., having the same node as multiple locations in the XML document) are not covered by XML, but are possible with objects.
2) Attributes in XML have no obvious mapping to objects...so what do you do with them?
I wish we could use something like XML (in that it could use DTDs as schemas, and had support for DOM methods along with XQuery and XPath), but with a more effecient format (binary), and with the ability to encode references.
That would be just about perfect.
An artist can choose his distribution model. If he wants to freely distribute it and make his money on concerts, the can go with a creative commons license and be done with it. If he chooses a different scheme, that is his choice.
...and I wake up every morning with a smile on my face because I know that it will be yet another day where I don't have to listen to Purple Rain.
Can an artist distribute by having armed men broadcast his music in public areas and then charge for the pleasure of listening, for example? No. There are limits to what an artist is allowed to do. There's a certain amount beyond which he is not allowed to trample on the rights of others in the manner that he distributes it (and in this case, I define "right" as "permission to do something that I am able to do"). He is not allowed, for example, to keep me from letting others listen to it in my presence, or to keep me from transferring that right to someone else.
Mostly because doing otherwise is generally considered absurd. I don't have to listen to my CD through headphones only, and I'm allowed to sell it. Whether or not you agree that this is true, there are some important points here:
1) Artists don't have exclusive control over how they distribute. The only thing that they have ultimate control over is whether or not they choose to do so in the first place.
2) Expanding the control over the distribution means decreasing the rights of the recipients of the media.
3) The line drawn with regard to mutually exclusive rights (such as rights of distribution) are determined by law (i.e., supposedly by public decision), not by something set into the foundation of humanity.
As the creator, he has the freedom of choice and it is not our right to dictate to him how he goes about it. If we don't like his terms, we can simple not listen to his music.
I don't believe he has that freedom. You presuppose that #3 is being done correctly, or that it's some sort of right inherently granted to the creator that would therefore be immoral.
Nobody has put a gun to our heads and forced us to listen to Purple Rain.
What aircraft corner as fast as barn swallows?
Most aircraft designs can, accepting for inertia (i.e., if you make a model of an airplane the size of a swallow, and then try to fly it around a corner, it'll do what the swallow can; a 747 sized swallow wouldn't be able to go around corners like a tiny one).
While we're on this, though, a better comparison would be hummingbirds vs. tiny UAVs. I'm pretty sure the hummingbirds are doing a better job not hitting things as they go about their sugar gathering missions than the UAVs are doing whatever they do.
I can guarantee you he was not loving it. I'd bet that the first emotion that he felt was anger at whatever caused the initial deviation from normal flight, followed by shock and apprehension in the final seconds once he realized he was in serious trouble.
You may be wrong about "what he loved" is referring to.
I personally, would be quite happy to die in a fiery explosion that produced a crater big enough to be visible from the moon. That'd be sweet (as long as no one else got hurt)! In that case, crashing wouldn't be what I loved, but making a crater would be.
"Doing what he loved" in some cases might also refer to some recreational pharmaceuticals and individuals of negotiable affection (though probably not in this case). I mean, with those involved, you might not actually notice you crashed until the ground rises up and smites you.