You're seeing everything black&white, the thing said there is a gray zone, and there are several levels of freedom. Even for classical forpay software everyone should have the right to have at least level 1 freedom, meaning to use the software he got in any purpose he find acceptable, even if it has not been thought of the provider or are against his purposes. It's an end consumers right everyone should have like in example warranty. Just imagine in example (just examples, not reality) a microsoft word that may not be used to write documents that do not admire microsoft (well has been true for some MSDN plugins for a while, hasn't it?) Or like selling a hammar, and adding a license it may only be used to hammer nails from the same company. When I bought a hammer I want to use it for any purpose I see this tool acceptable (and legal in other means), would like a hammer with a restricted use conditions? Or saying you might not try or ever had tried to build your hammer when using this hammer?
It is you who does not understand. Yes the use of software is bound by a license.
Yes it is, but read the quotes of GNU project, and the grades of freedom you have. At very least you should have the freedom to _use_ a software for any purpose you like. If even the use is restricted you've freedom zero.
And again and again and again, the point is not if the restriction is in there or not, if you need to pay or not, the point is that they can put any restriction in there any time they like (free or forpay version). And suddendly the linux kernel is dependant on the goodwill of Bitmover, thats all what RMS is saying, if you make (important) free software on the back of properitary products you're not free anymore.
Because xmllint can do far more than just matching the start and end tags, it also checks if the file matches in example the semantic specified in your DTD. Like _how_ the data is constructed. And it does absolutly not matter how easy/difficult it is to write an XML validator, because you don't have to.
If you look into how the SAX interface works you'll recoqnize that it isn't any more work than the code you provided.
I say it again your format is nothing else than RTF with '\' replaced by a '#'. You've merly reinvented a wheel, and honestly I've worked with RTF files (back in the days when windows used the.hlp files before they catched up using HTML, it required RTF), RTF looks like crap (personal opinion)
The next thing you're missing is a nice unified transformation script for your data. Like in example XSLT provides for XML. Want to see an overview of your data in HTML? You need to write a program for this. With XML just hack a XSLT script.
Thats not true, you cannot shift tags in XML, well you can write ASCII text files having this " text ", but this is NOT valid xml, simple as that.
You will never get past a XML validation tool like xmllint with this.
For "your" format, look how RTF looks like, it's very similar. only a tag starts with \, and groups with { }.
The point in using XML is not that the format is that superiour to your own formats (well it ain't bad altough), but the point is that you can already use a whole set of tools on this format, you would have to write yourself for you own. Like a validator (xmllint), a technical exact spec how data symantic is encoded (the XML-DTD), and finally you can use an already written parser/reader to read the syntax (my favorite libexpat).
Thats absolute marketdroid nonse, just because it is XML doesn't mean it must not be documented. It also has to be documented as well as binary. First step is the DTD for the XML which describes some rules the XML follows, but even with a DTD you need a documentation what what means.
This all applieas also to XML-RPC. It has also to be documented like tradional RPC. Whats the advantage of XML-RPC over RPC? I the hell don't know. Besides that 3 times as much data is transfered I guess the only advantage is a market buzz word thrown in, doesn't matter the technical benefits/costs.
You're right, but not only cheap MACs are selled with duplicate MACs, also high price NICs do have duplicates. Why? Simple because MAC ranges are also limited, how is it done? Simple if you sell to two markets, ie europe and america, you can use in example each MAC twice, once on a NIC you sell in america, once on a NIC in europe, even the most popular vendors do things like that. The thing that needs to happen to lead to problem is someone putting his NIC into his suitcase, fly over to america, and there put it into exactly the same LAN it's duplicate resides in. Likeliness of such a thing? Almost none, and even if it happens once in 10 years, we will gladly donate two brand new NICs to the person who encountered that problem, even with a chick bringing it in person to his house this is still way cheaper than buying a whole new MAC range.
I don't know for sure, but if I remember correctly what GR says, and what the event horizon of a black hole should be that we have absolute no means to investigate insider the horiziont, without flying inside it, if something is inside it has no way to bring any information to the outside? Also from classical gravity, remember any round bowl can be simplified to a gravity point without making an error? How should we ever know how a black hole looks like inside the horizont? We can't and is unknown or doesn't matter in our world in the outside. A black hole is an object with the diameter of it's event horizont, insides don't matter, right?
Slowly I'm somehow suposing you're either beeing ignorant just having to have you point or you are merly stupid. A (terrestical) virus without any host cells cannot move, cannot reproduce, and cannot """destroy all evidence of nativ life on Venus"""
Well men can also only perform tests they have the tools for, they can't act dynamicly, all the tests are either planned on launch, or the aproperiate tools are missing.
but by making it a manned flight you will be able to fit more tests on board overall because the engineering necessary to allow for human flight will eliminate the need for complex automation.
Thats is quite some nonsense. Today automation is so cheap, it's generally far less expensive that creating a life support system. Additional to the space, temprature, oxigen, food, beds, traning equipment, toilets, etc. you need for humans, the mission is far more expensice as it has to be very safe. An unmanned rocket, explodes! So what? Well some money went down the gull. However how would this affect the NASA, the ESA or any other space instute, get it?
You may find it cool to fly around venus, but in a econamic/scientific calculation it does not make sense. Not yet. Today with engineering we're quite far that we can and should send quite a lot mechanical pioneers, until the destination is easy habitable for humans, if you think of colonization for anything. If you're thinking scientificly only humans are not needed any more in space. Except of the science to bring humans through space;o) (and just to look if we're able to get somebody alive on mars surface, just in case we do want to colonize it one day. And even then mars should first be "colonized" by a mechanical troop. collecting things, closely investigating the surrondings etc. If you start with a mega huge budget (nobody has) to start to colonize in example mars, (or a space station around) venus, you would still send half a dozend probes first, investigating ideal langing places, estimating ie. radation, look what materials you can find in place. (for example do you need to bring water, or can you find some there, how can you aquire it) etc. etc. However most scientists and dreamers agree that the first step needed by any of this dreams is a big and well constructed space station in earth orbit, as a base for all this plans/operation. Thats what currently is beeing builded. The second thing lots of people agree on who still think sane (so also in economic aspects) will say that to get any of this missions in sane resource requirments (resources we as community all need to dispense from our own lifes) we have to find a cheaper way to get things in orbit. After that it does not matter, but orbiting things is yet just far to expensive to create any larger things outside of earth. However also on that a lot of people break their heads over. If it's laser lighting, space lifting, super conductor cannons, etc. any maybe one day one of this techniques (or an other) may replace our tradional fuel burning rockets, currently used to orbit things, only if this is aquired extended space missions make sense.
If it's the one left by one of our own probes? Then No,as proparly has been pointed out, with our space missions we're infecting our whole solar system. If it's alien DNA, I give you fully right it's of course great news. However finding this would raise a million new questions, if it's alien DNA (not alive itself), to which life form did come from? If it's an alien virus, for which host is it constructed, where did it come from? And before the panic strikes come up, even if there is an alien DNA, designed to infect some alien form, it is 99.99% percent unlikely to be able to infect a terristic life form.
Or other news if our own terristic bacteries infected by one of ouw own space missions starts to reproduce on any place, not beeing earth, thats new worthy. However terristic life accidently left by us, lurking around inactive/dead somewhere in space is just boring.
Don't need to push on that, the article is just blantly false: Linux is eitherway older than windows. The first kernel was released in 1991, Windows NT started years later.
Perdo, I would not call others trash talking scientist if you in the first instance mismatch defintions. (like virus instead of bacteria). Science is exact.
Second you're again doing unscientific, you pulling "evidence" out of your ass without any kind of reference or telling us where you got you're data or information from, "I read this article too long ago to remember it's subject". So you don't remember the subject, but you learned the article itself by heart? Or did you just write what you remembered?
A virus is actually just a DNA bundle with a infecting mechanism to insert it's DNA to a living cell. A virus cannot exist wihout any host bacteria, so how could it exist on venus without any other life form beeing there? It just cannot. Okay if one of our probes left a virus there, would it be news if it would be still there? Not really. It's just a DNA bundle, it cannot move, it cannot breath, it cannot reproduce, all it hopes for is to come in contact with a cell it's designed for to infect it. Then this cell produces replicates of this DNA bundle until it dies, it burts open, and so it spreads. Remember now? Now reconsider what would a virus be doing on venus? It cannot be responsile for any chemical or light reflaction changes, it just can't do anything. Got a clue now?
Yeah, he's right. There is no such thing as airborn viruses....not
Well as a wanna be scientist you should now that viruses are also not alive per se. Viruses are a classic twilight area. Are they alive, are they not? It's not an easy answer. However to claim them to be a life form as you do is false.
It does not matter that much, you can write any legal remedies in it. Like hurting your eyes, and you having a traume with it. You can sue anybody with everything, if you're going (or even planning) to win is another thematic. You can sue anybody about anything with no real chances on winning, but you still win. 1st possiblity is just to hurt his repurtition for a while (possiblity to bring him out of buisness). You're costumers only hear and see that you're currently sued because of -enter evil thing here-, they don't really care if you guilty or not, but they choose not to make buisness with you, because of the danger it could be. The suer wins altough he doesn't get right in the court. The second way is just to have such a lot of capitial that you can sue him, stretching the trial as long as possible, sue him again, etc. as long your opponent is out of buisness, attorney costs, hurted reputation (the reliability of a company just gets dramatically hurt for every suit they have, even if they are innocent as a sheep). IMHO It's just evil out there.
Slashdot Mirror
You're seeing everything black&white, the thing said there is a gray zone, and there are several levels of freedom. Even for classical forpay software everyone should have the right to have at least level 1 freedom, meaning to use the software he got in any purpose he find acceptable, even if it has not been thought of the provider or are against his purposes. It's an end consumers right everyone should have like in example warranty. Just imagine in example (just examples, not reality) a microsoft word that may not be used to write documents that do not admire microsoft (well has been true for some MSDN plugins for a while, hasn't it?) Or like selling a hammar, and adding a license it may only be used to hammer nails from the same company. When I bought a hammer I want to use it for any purpose I see this tool acceptable (and legal in other means), would like a hammer with a restricted use conditions? Or saying you might not try or ever had tried to build your hammer when using this hammer?
I thought the buyed hugh parts of apple some years ago, altough nonvoting shares, or they would get in real legal troubles about monopolizing.
It is you who does not understand. Yes the use of software is bound by a license.
Yes it is, but read the quotes of GNU project, and the grades of freedom you have. At very least you should have the freedom to _use_ a software for any purpose you like. If even the use is restricted you've freedom zero.
"Please moderate down the parent comment."
Never tell anybody else what to moderate!
And again and again and again, the point is not if the restriction is in there or not, if you need to pay or not, the point is that they can put any restriction in there any time they like (free or forpay version). And suddendly the linux kernel is dependant on the goodwill of Bitmover, thats all what RMS is saying, if you make (important) free software on the back of properitary products you're not free anymore.
Isn't 49% of Apple already owned by microsoft eitherway???
Because xmllint can do far more than just matching the start and end tags, it also checks if the file matches in example the semantic specified in your DTD. Like _how_ the data is constructed. And it does absolutly not matter how easy/difficult it is to write an XML validator, because you don't have to.
.hlp files before they catched up using HTML, it required RTF), RTF looks like crap (personal opinion)
If you look into how the SAX interface works you'll recoqnize that it isn't any more work than the code you provided.
I say it again your format is nothing else than RTF with '\' replaced by a '#'. You've merly reinvented a wheel, and honestly I've worked with RTF files (back in the days when windows used the
The next thing you're missing is a nice unified transformation script for your data. Like in example XSLT provides for XML. Want to see an overview of your data in HTML? You need to write a program for this. With XML just hack a XSLT script.
Thats not true, you cannot shift tags in XML, well you can write ASCII text files having this " text ", but this is NOT valid xml, simple as that.
You will never get past a XML validation tool like xmllint with this.
For "your" format, look how RTF looks like, it's very similar. only a tag starts with \, and groups with { }.
The point in using XML is not that the format is that superiour to your own formats (well it ain't bad altough), but the point is that you can already use a whole set of tools on this format, you would have to write yourself for you own. Like a validator (xmllint), a technical exact spec how data symantic is encoded (the XML-DTD), and finally you can use an already written parser/reader to read the syntax (my favorite libexpat).
Thats absolute marketdroid nonse, just because it is XML doesn't mean it must not be documented. It also has to be documented as well as binary. First step is the DTD for the XML which describes some rules the XML follows, but even with a DTD you need a documentation what what means.
This all applieas also to XML-RPC. It has also to be documented like tradional RPC. Whats the advantage of XML-RPC over RPC? I the hell don't know. Besides that 3 times as much data is transfered I guess the only advantage is a market buzz word thrown in, doesn't matter the technical benefits/costs.
You're right, but not only cheap MACs are selled with duplicate MACs, also high price NICs do have duplicates. Why? Simple because MAC ranges are also limited, how is it done? Simple if you sell to two markets, ie europe and america, you can use in example each MAC twice, once on a NIC you sell in america, once on a NIC in europe, even the most popular vendors do things like that. The thing that needs to happen to lead to problem is someone putting his NIC into his suitcase, fly over to america, and there put it into exactly the same LAN it's duplicate resides in. Likeliness of such a thing? Almost none, and even if it happens once in 10 years, we will gladly donate two brand new NICs to the person who encountered that problem, even with a chick bringing it in person to his house this is still way cheaper than buying a whole new MAC range.
To be in the same grammar style as the original:
All your searches ARE belong to us!
A: Photos? All I see are empty hangars and plain blue skylines.
B: Well now is THAT not a hell of a stealth fighter?
I don't know for sure, but if I remember correctly what GR says, and what the event horizon of a black hole should be that we have absolute no means to investigate insider the horiziont, without flying inside it, if something is inside it has no way to bring any information to the outside? Also from classical gravity, remember any round bowl can be simplified to a gravity point without making an error? How should we ever know how a black hole looks like inside the horizont? We can't and is unknown or doesn't matter in our world in the outside. A black hole is an object with the diameter of it's event horizont, insides don't matter, right?
Honestly? We're both stupid by discussion such a non-issue.
Slowly I'm somehow suposing you're either beeing ignorant just having to have you point or you are merly stupid. A (terrestical) virus without any host cells cannot move, cannot reproduce, and cannot """destroy all evidence of nativ life on Venus"""
Well men can also only perform tests they have the tools for, they can't act dynamicly, all the tests are either planned on launch, or the aproperiate tools are missing.
but by making it a manned flight you will be able to fit more tests on board overall because the engineering necessary to allow for human flight will eliminate the need for complex automation.
;o) (and just to look if we're able to get somebody alive on mars surface, just in case we do want to colonize it one day. And even then mars should first be "colonized" by a mechanical troop. collecting things, closely investigating the surrondings etc. If you start with a mega huge budget (nobody has) to start to colonize in example mars, (or a space station around) venus, you would still send half a dozend probes first, investigating ideal langing places, estimating ie. radation, look what materials you can find in place. (for example do you need to bring water, or can you find some there, how can you aquire it) etc. etc. However most scientists and dreamers agree that the first step needed by any of this dreams is a big and well constructed space station in earth orbit, as a base for all this plans/operation. Thats what currently is beeing builded. The second thing lots of people agree on who still think sane (so also in economic aspects) will say that to get any of this missions in sane resource requirments (resources we as community all need to dispense from our own lifes) we have to find a cheaper way to get things in orbit. After that it does not matter, but orbiting things is yet just far to expensive to create any larger things outside of earth. However also on that a lot of people break their heads over. If it's laser lighting, space lifting, super conductor cannons, etc. any maybe one day one of this techniques (or an other) may replace our tradional fuel burning rockets, currently used to orbit things, only if this is aquired extended space missions make sense.
Thats is quite some nonsense. Today automation is so cheap, it's generally far less expensive that creating a life support system. Additional to the space, temprature, oxigen, food, beds, traning equipment, toilets, etc. you need for humans, the mission is far more expensice as it has to be very safe. An unmanned rocket, explodes! So what? Well some money went down the gull. However how would this affect the NASA, the ESA or any other space instute, get it?
You may find it cool to fly around venus, but in a econamic/scientific calculation it does not make sense. Not yet. Today with engineering we're quite far that we can and should send quite a lot mechanical pioneers, until the destination is easy habitable for humans, if you think of colonization for anything. If you're thinking scientificly only humans are not needed any more in space. Except of the science to bring humans through space
If it's the one left by one of our own probes? Then No,as proparly has been pointed out, with our space missions we're infecting our whole solar system. If it's alien DNA, I give you fully right it's of course great news. However finding this would raise a million new questions, if it's alien DNA (not alive itself), to which life form did come from? If it's an alien virus, for which host is it constructed, where did it come from? And before the panic strikes come up, even if there is an alien DNA, designed to infect some alien form, it is 99.99% percent unlikely to be able to infect a terristic life form.
Or other news if our own terristic bacteries infected by one of ouw own space missions starts to reproduce on any place, not beeing earth, thats new worthy. However terristic life accidently left by us, lurking around inactive/dead somewhere in space is just boring.
Just one question, what do you need the men for? An unmanned mission can also all do this perfectly.
How does newer == "less secure" in this scenario?
Don't need to push on that, the article is just blantly false: Linux is eitherway older than windows. The first kernel was released in 1991, Windows NT started years later.
If 0101000001001010's only archivement in life (in contrast to RMS) is a hatefull /. comment, does anybody care?
Perdo, I would not call others trash talking scientist if you in the first instance mismatch defintions. (like virus instead of bacteria). Science is exact.
Second you're again doing unscientific, you pulling "evidence" out of your ass without any kind of reference or telling us where you got you're data or information from, "I read this article too long ago to remember it's subject". So you don't remember the subject, but you learned the article itself by heart? Or did you just write what you remembered?
That's trash talking IMHO.
Mister, do you remember what a virus actually is?
A virus is actually just a DNA bundle with a infecting mechanism to insert it's DNA to a living cell. A virus cannot exist wihout any host bacteria, so how could it exist on venus without any other life form beeing there? It just cannot. Okay if one of our probes left a virus there, would it be news if it would be still there? Not really. It's just a DNA bundle, it cannot move, it cannot breath, it cannot reproduce, all it hopes for is to come in contact with a cell it's designed for to infect it. Then this cell produces replicates of this DNA bundle until it dies, it burts open, and so it spreads. Remember now? Now reconsider what would a virus be doing on venus? It cannot be responsile for any chemical or light reflaction changes, it just can't do anything. Got a clue now?
Yeah, he's right. There is no such thing as airborn viruses....not
Well as a wanna be scientist you should now that viruses are also not alive per se. Viruses are a classic twilight area. Are they alive, are they not? It's not an easy answer. However to claim them to be a life form as you do is false.
It does not matter that much, you can write any legal remedies in it. Like hurting your eyes, and you having a traume with it. You can sue anybody with everything, if you're going (or even planning) to win is another thematic. You can sue anybody about anything with no real chances on winning, but you still win. 1st possiblity is just to hurt his repurtition for a while (possiblity to bring him out of buisness). You're costumers only hear and see that you're currently sued because of -enter evil thing here-, they don't really care if you guilty or not, but they choose not to make buisness with you, because of the danger it could be. The suer wins altough he doesn't get right in the court. The second way is just to have such a lot of capitial that you can sue him, stretching the trial as long as possible, sue him again, etc. as long your opponent is out of buisness, attorney costs, hurted reputation (the reliability of a company just gets dramatically hurt for every suit they have, even if they are innocent as a sheep). IMHO It's just evil out there.
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020428