How many people here buys books based on where the author is from?
That's exactly the point. People buy good books, regardless of the author's nationality.
Right now, US SF authors are mostly churning out either glorified soap operas or thinly disguised political diatribes. So they're not popular.
On the other hand the UK, and particularly Scotland, has a set - clique, whatever - of novelists who are truly revitalising the genre. Their stories have the same spirit as (ironically) the great books which US authors used to produce. So they win awards.
Right now there's a definite correlation between nationality and quality of SF. I just hope the US writers get over whatever's bothering them and start writing the good stuff again.
(BTW, how on earth could someone read an Octavia Butler novel and *not* realise she's African-American.)
What's the practical benefit of wings on a spacecraft?
It's easier and cheaper to land a spacecraft horizontally. Vertical takeoff is fine, but vertical landing requires a lot of extra fuel which you simply don't require if the craft glides in to a landing.
Well, the IP types are always saying that you don't own the work, just the right to play/use it. In that case, you should be entitled (geddit?) either to a refund or a replacement charged at the cost of the blank replacement media.
Re:When four corners is too much
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely sure. I was in the industry at the time and putting code into the public domain was the norm. Heck, I still have QIC and TK50 tapes full of the stuff from the 70s and 80s. Collections used to get passed around by hand at user group meetings and when you visited companies (no internet, and USENET over phone lines was a bit unreliable).
A lot of PD code was adopted by the FSF when they started up, and now people think they wrote it in the first place. Not so.
What makes me wary of the FSF is that they want to impose their definition of freedom on everyone. Trouble is, their vision of freedom doesn't include code which isn't under the control of the GPL so PD got airbrushed out of history.
Re:When four corners is too much
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
he says it got to the point where he was "the last true hacker"
And he was wrong. There was a thriving Public Domain community - but it didn't have the need for control which characterises both Stallman and Gates.
"Some people have asked why we didn't put tabs in IE sooner," Hachamovitch wrote. "Initially, we had some concerns around complexity and consistencywill it confuse users more than it benefits them? Is it confusing if IE has tabs, but other core parts of the Windows experience, like Windows Media Player or the shell, don't have?"
Thank-you. I was wondering if anyone would understand that I wasn't attacking AOP so much as the sheer amount of jargon being used to describe what turns out to be quite a simple idea.
See my other message. I did look into it a bit more and came to the conclusion that AOP is marginally useful in some situations, but is way too open to abuse.
Saying that everything in A can be done using B *is* a valid criticism if B has advantages that A does not share. That's why we have different programming languages and techniques.
Aha, now I see the core idea. I must say that it sounds somewhat useful but *very* dangerous if misused (and you know people are going to).
I'm not a huge fan of hiding things unnecessarily because it can cause unexpected behaviour and make programs harder to debug. Limited to a set of well tested objects and doing stuff that the caller really has no need to know about or control, fine.
BTW, AspectJ immediately reminded me of cfront from the early C++ days. Now that was a scary way to implement OO.
Thanks for the clear explanation. I was really just tweaking the OP's tail for excessive use of jargon, but you've confirmed what I suspected, which is that this is an overly complex solution to a problem which is better solved with lightweight processes and inter-process communication.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer to shift with my left foot
...
I preferred to shift with my *right* foot, but then all those rice-burners came along with the shift lever on the wrong side
I miss that old Bantam.
I always thought it would be fun to hack the code that prints out savings coupons based on your purchases.
You buy a box of cakes and a tub of ice-cream? Get 10% off a Slim-Kwik[TM] diet plan.
Buy veggie-burgers? Special offer on veal cutlets!
How many people here buys books based on where the author is from?
That's exactly the point. People buy good books, regardless of the author's nationality.
Right now, US SF authors are mostly churning out either glorified soap operas or thinly disguised political diatribes. So they're not popular.
On the other hand the UK, and particularly Scotland, has a set - clique, whatever - of novelists who are truly revitalising the genre. Their stories have the same spirit as (ironically) the great books which US authors used to produce. So they win awards.
Right now there's a definite correlation between nationality and quality of SF. I just hope the US writers get over whatever's bothering them and start writing the good stuff again.
(BTW, how on earth could someone read an Octavia Butler novel and *not* realise she's African-American.)
Yabbut if they'd chosen one of those other names the GNU version wouldn't end up being called Gonad.
Sneaky, huh?
Parachutes are a small scale solution. Ever see a 747 fitted with a parachute? Now guess how much a reusable spacecraft weighs.
What's the practical benefit of wings on a spacecraft?
It's easier and cheaper to land a spacecraft horizontally. Vertical takeoff is fine, but vertical landing requires a lot of extra fuel which you simply don't require if the craft glides in to a landing.
Takeoffs are optional, landings are mandatory.
Let me introduce you to this concept we call escape velocity. Landings are most definitely optional.
So what you're saying is that it's basically an OO version of Emacs, right?
I'm half joking, but everything you say about Smalltalk also applies to Emacs.
http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200507/df2005 0718.jpg
;)
See anyone you recognise?
Even I couldn't make that many mistakes in one sentence by accident. It was a joke, and I was agreeing with you in a self-mocking fashion.
...)
(Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble
That's a nasty thing to call your Grandmother.
The phrase has been so mis-used that it has, in affect, come to loose it's meaning.
Well, the IP types are always saying that you don't own the work, just the right to play/use it. In that case, you should be entitled (geddit?) either to a refund or a replacement charged at the cost of the blank replacement media.
So, do you have any of those decoder rings left?
(And thanks for drawing the comic - it made my morning a little brighter.)
A9 have a pretty good one. Works in Linux and Windows.
The point is obvious: banjos are used to perpetrate Jazz music and are therefore evil.
Kewl, so what we get :
GPL == Promiscuous
BSD == Gratuitous
Works for me.
Absolutely sure. I was in the industry at the time and putting code into the public domain was the norm. Heck, I still have QIC and TK50 tapes full of the stuff from the 70s and 80s. Collections used to get passed around by hand at user group meetings and when you visited companies (no internet, and USENET over phone lines was a bit unreliable).
A lot of PD code was adopted by the FSF when they started up, and now people think they wrote it in the first place. Not so.
What makes me wary of the FSF is that they want to impose their definition of freedom on everyone. Trouble is, their vision of freedom doesn't include code which isn't under the control of the GPL so PD got airbrushed out of history.
he says it got to the point where he was "the last true hacker"
And he was wrong. There was a thriving Public Domain community - but it didn't have the need for control which characterises both Stallman and Gates.
Based on past performance, the MS security gurus should be asking questions of the general public.
From TFA:
"Some people have asked why we didn't put tabs in IE sooner," Hachamovitch wrote. "Initially, we had some concerns around complexity and consistencywill it confuse users more than it benefits them? Is it confusing if IE has tabs, but other core parts of the Windows experience, like Windows Media Player or the shell, don't have?"
(sic throughout)
Just like the headline says.
Thank-you. I was wondering if anyone would understand that I wasn't attacking AOP so much as the sheer amount of jargon being used to describe what turns out to be quite a simple idea.
See my other message. I did look into it a bit more and came to the conclusion that AOP is marginally useful in some situations, but is way too open to abuse.
Saying that everything in A can be done using B *is* a valid criticism if B has advantages that A does not share. That's why we have different programming languages and techniques.
Aha, now I see the core idea. I must say that it sounds somewhat useful but *very* dangerous if misused (and you know people are going to).
I'm not a huge fan of hiding things unnecessarily because it can cause unexpected behaviour and make programs harder to debug. Limited to a set of well tested objects and doing stuff that the caller really has no need to know about or control, fine.
BTW, AspectJ immediately reminded me of cfront from the early C++ days. Now that was a scary way to implement OO.
Thanks for the clear explanation. I was really just tweaking the OP's tail for excessive use of jargon, but you've confirmed what I suspected, which is that this is an overly complex solution to a problem which is better solved with lightweight processes and inter-process communication.