Write that as a single line in the address bar (replacing FILENAME with the link to a javascript file), and the script is loaded into the page. The same trick works for css files (which have to be in the header), when you only want to load them on certain - clientside - conditions.
So you are just complaining that perl has not chosen to use veryLongAndDescriptiveFunctionNames, instead opting for short names in the style of C and the UNIX shell environment (which are two of its main and early influences).
Or how about this - if you release your copyrighted work in DRMed format, without a realistic and working solution for the continued access by your customers in the event of the company ending or the work going out of copyright (for any reason), all copyright protection of that work is revoked (including DMCA etc.) A law like that would effectively make it a choice between DRM and copyright - thereby returning the balance between the protection offered by society via copyright and the gain for society of works being published and eventually entering the public domain. But that might be considered fair and reasonable - not going to happen.
Try googling the words "page brin pagerank" - the first result I got was the CiteSeer entry for the PageRank article from '98. It describes the basic algorithm - and I can say from experience, that PageRank can be implemented using this and other available articles (no, I don't care to look up more - go build a search engine and find them yourself (or bootstrap with google)).
What is protected by Googles trade secrets is what they do besides PageRank (e.g. detection of link farms). And how to run a search engine that services the whole internet with nice response times.
If a server is important enough to use double UPS, would it not be a better idea to have redundant PSUs and connect one UPS to each - that way it would be protected against either of the UPSs or PSUs failing (as long as they fail to "power off") - as well as the mains failing?
The laws of physics give us the amount of energy that we have to expend to put a given mass into orbit. What is not dictated by physics, is how we do it. One well known alternative to rockets is a space elevator. Other possibilities include accelerating the payload magnetically or electrically. The main thing is that they allow the energy to be supplied from stationary infrastructure in stead of bringing it along with the payload - thus saving the cost (in energy) of lifting each ton of rocket fuel to the altitude where the rocket needs to burn it.
In the case of the space elevator, a further improvement is possible: If return traffic also uses the elevator, then it may be possible to extract the potential energy of the payload in a useful form, rather than wasting it as heat in the atmosphere using a heat shield to brake. If someday the earth were to become a net importer of materials from outside the gravity well, reclaimed energy might even exceed the amount used to lift cargo into space...
(Just guessing btw, I know nothing, so no need to send the assault team just yet)
Kinda makes me glad that things are not like that on this side of the pond (I'm in Denmark)... All my pensions get deposited with a pension company at the same time I get my monthly pay. Whatever happens, my pension is part of my pay package, and while it will obviously grow with the time I work, there's nothing my employer can do (unless they _steal_ - in the true legal sense - my money) about what I've already qualified for. Why on earth would you want a pension plan that depends on you staying with the company or the company staying around at all for a great many years?
My own additions - from doing Sharepoint: - Key classes (SPSite and SPWeb) that are IDisposable. That's not too much of a problem, except that the documentation is somewhat vague on how to handle them - calling some methods will e.g. initialize the RootWeb property of SPSite, which you have to dispose, despite never having called RootWeb yourself. And sometimes you have to take care _not_ to dispose, as you are handed a reference to a shared instance of an SPWeb or SPSite. - Several nice components are sealed and/or internal - my current pet peeve is a webpart, which has its look and feel defined via XSLT-files (big poorly documented XSLT-files, that do a lot of scary things to dump a lot of ugly HTML), unfortunately these XSLT-files are used by several different webparts, and some of them have neither the ability to subclass the webpart to use another file, nor the option of configuring which file to use. The only way to change that look and feel is to change the standard files. - Checking user permissions in some places requires you to call a boolean method and receive true for access (sounds good so far, right...) and an exception for access denied! - Not only is the default rendering a load of IE specific crap, if you dig deep enough, you'll find hardcoded strings inside the core libraries that, to the best of my knowledge, are not valid HTML in any contemporary standard. And the only way to get rid of it is to capture the output stream and clean it up by hand, one string pattern at a time. - And that reminds me of a.NET one - why can't I do regular expressions on StringBuilder objects? I have to convert one to an immutable string, do my replacement that results in another immutable string. Just seems like an awful lot of copying, if I'm doing a lot of editing. - And another Sharepoint gripe - why are all the interesting parts of my code inheriting stuff, that makes unit testing a real pain (I tried to mock my way through it once or twice, but the amount of code needed to test without invoking the database backend is beyond what I could justify even trying).
Just curious, how would you handle developing in a framework, where your non-trivial functionality is hard/impossible (within the constraints of the real world - i.e. you can't discard/rewrite major pieces of the infrastructure, you have to live with them) to unit test? An example that I'm familiar with is Microsofts Sharepoint. Given enough time one could either muck up the entire environment - something that would be very brittle (and another huge block of code to maintain), or one could script the creation of a virginal environment for each testcase - but that could add several minutes of setup time to each test case - not really what you want in a large project. Don't get me wrong, I think unit tests are nice when they work, but unless you've got some tricks I haven't seen, you need to be able to control the inputs and capture the output of the unit you are testing. and unless you are building from scratch, it might be difficult to retain that level of control over units of a meaningful size (larger than "trivial" and smaller than "the entire system").
Well, corruption could be seen as a business process, so I guess the one could design, document and implement an ISO 9000 compliant process for paying and receiving bribes etc.
If so, that would be a very bad choice indeed!
In the absence of a MX record, a correctly functioning SMTP client must treat an A record like an implicit MX record with preference 0. Go read RFC2821, section 5 - it's all spelled out there.
Why, assuming that you have sufficient disk space (but since you are arguing for loads of ram, adding enough disk should not be an issue), would you insist on keeping data in ram, if the operating system can use the space to hold something that you are more likely to need. I'm by no means an expert on virtual memory algorithms, but my understanding of the way a modern system is _supposed_ to work is: The computer has a number of different storage systems, the amount of which is usually reversely proportional to their performance. At the top of this pile is the registers and caches of the cpu and at the bottom harddisks, other physical media and network resources. The job of the OS and the cpu is to make sure that the capacity of each level is used for data that is more likely to be of use than than the data on the slower levels, but not useful enough to move even higher. With that in mind, I would very much like my OS to swap out any program that does not look like it will need to be in ram, if it means that more of the data I'm using can be in ram in return. So assuming that the algorithms used (in Windows - I know it is a stretch) are decent, you should indeed be able to avoid swapping by using enough ram - it might just be that the amount of ram you need is beyond even the large capacity of todays machines, and Windows might very well still insist on having _some_ swap, even if it should never be put to use.
What exactly would be the point of requiring the code to remain licensed under both licenses? If e.g. a library is licensed under two mutually exclusive open-source licenses, the whole point is that I can derive a version licensed under one of those licenses to link with my own code under the same license.
Also note the wording in one of the diffs:
Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
Software Foundation.
The word 'Alternatively' usually means that I may select either of the rules it stands between, not that I must abide by both.
Microsoft should be tried fairly, but that includes being tried under the rules of the european laws and courts. Just because there are differences between the systems of justice, it does not mean that MS can run to the US system and ask for help, if the EU has a law or rule that MS doesn't like.
There is a good reason to judge code on readability: People have read and write it to make changes. The code can be as nice or as ugly as the coder wants to make it, as far as the compiler is concerned, so for the benefit of the next guy one might as well lean towards making it nice.
and point-and-click at the window. This even gives you the full geometry argument ready to copy to your script, no resizing of the window and remembering the size needed.
Surely SCO must be worth just a little more, no matter how much they have soiled the name. Something like $49.99 with a $15 mail-in rebate sounds about right. Provided that shipping is included.
Two points: You pay your contractor, right? So how about paying someone to be liable? What's "tastes horrible" and "contaminated" in software? How much care do I need to take when programming (you are not going to get bug-free for free or cheap) to not "contaminate" the program? If we look at your food sample analogy, lots of things could be wrong, without the food being "contaminated". You could be allergic to something in the food - is that my fault? Likewise in software, your system could be different in an unpredictable way causing my software to fail, no matter how well I wrote it. And a million other things, because software is alot more complex than cooking (unless you are talking Michelin Guide cooking - but I don't think they hand out samples or give many free meals).
The GPL is a copyright license. It grants you a number of rights that you would not otherwise have -- provided that you follow certain rules. If you read clause 0 of the actual text, http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, you'll see that it explicitly says that it only covers "copying, distribution and modification", because this is all that copyright regulates.
Well, you assume that the people who do this could be "reassigned" to other projects, which might not be true, since they are not getting paid for it. If the choice is between people porting oss to odd platforms or no code at all, I'd prefer the porting.
Slashdot Mirror
Write that as a single line in the address bar (replacing FILENAME with the link to a javascript file), and the script is loaded into the page. The same trick works for css files (which have to be in the header), when you only want to load them on certain - clientside - conditions.
So you are just complaining that perl has not chosen to use veryLongAndDescriptiveFunctionNames, instead opting for short names in the style of C and the UNIX shell environment (which are two of its main and early influences).
Or how about this - if you release your copyrighted work in DRMed format, without a realistic and working solution for the continued access by your customers in the event of the company ending or the work going out of copyright (for any reason), all copyright protection of that work is revoked (including DMCA etc.) A law like that would effectively make it a choice between DRM and copyright - thereby returning the balance between the protection offered by society via copyright and the gain for society of works being published and eventually entering the public domain. But that might be considered fair and reasonable - not going to happen.
Try googling the words "page brin pagerank" - the first result I got was the CiteSeer entry for the PageRank article from '98. It describes the basic algorithm - and I can say from experience, that PageRank can be implemented using this and other available articles (no, I don't care to look up more - go build a search engine and find them yourself (or bootstrap with google)).
What is protected by Googles trade secrets is what they do besides PageRank (e.g. detection of link farms). And how to run a search engine that services the whole internet with nice response times.
If a server is important enough to use double UPS, would it not be a better idea to have redundant PSUs and connect one UPS to each - that way it would be protected against either of the UPSs or PSUs failing (as long as they fail to "power off") - as well as the mains failing?
I'll venture a guess...
The laws of physics give us the amount of energy that we have to expend to put a given mass into orbit. What is not dictated by physics, is how we do it. One well known alternative to rockets is a space elevator. Other possibilities include accelerating the payload magnetically or electrically. The main thing is that they allow the energy to be supplied from stationary infrastructure in stead of bringing it along with the payload - thus saving the cost (in energy) of lifting each ton of rocket fuel to the altitude where the rocket needs to burn it.
In the case of the space elevator, a further improvement is possible: If return traffic also uses the elevator, then it may be possible to extract the potential energy of the payload in a useful form, rather than wasting it as heat in the atmosphere using a heat shield to brake. If someday the earth were to become a net importer of materials from outside the gravity well, reclaimed energy might even exceed the amount used to lift cargo into space...
(Just guessing btw, I know nothing, so no need to send the assault team just yet)
Kinda makes me glad that things are not like that on this side of the pond (I'm in Denmark)... All my pensions get deposited with a pension company at the same time I get my monthly pay. Whatever happens, my pension is part of my pay package, and while it will obviously grow with the time I work, there's nothing my employer can do (unless they _steal_ - in the true legal sense - my money) about what I've already qualified for. Why on earth would you want a pension plan that depends on you staying with the company or the company staying around at all for a great many years?
Damn - what a list.
.NET one - why can't I do regular expressions on StringBuilder objects? I have to convert one to an immutable string, do my replacement that results in another immutable string. Just seems like an awful lot of copying, if I'm doing a lot of editing.
My own additions - from doing Sharepoint:
- Key classes (SPSite and SPWeb) that are IDisposable. That's not too much of a problem, except that the documentation is somewhat vague on how to handle them - calling some methods will e.g. initialize the RootWeb property of SPSite, which you have to dispose, despite never having called RootWeb yourself. And sometimes you have to take care _not_ to dispose, as you are handed a reference to a shared instance of an SPWeb or SPSite.
- Several nice components are sealed and/or internal - my current pet peeve is a webpart, which has its look and feel defined via XSLT-files (big poorly documented XSLT-files, that do a lot of scary things to dump a lot of ugly HTML), unfortunately these XSLT-files are used by several different webparts, and some of them have neither the ability to subclass the webpart to use another file, nor the option of configuring which file to use. The only way to change that look and feel is to change the standard files.
- Checking user permissions in some places requires you to call a boolean method and receive true for access (sounds good so far, right...) and an exception for access denied!
- Not only is the default rendering a load of IE specific crap, if you dig deep enough, you'll find hardcoded strings inside the core libraries that, to the best of my knowledge, are not valid HTML in any contemporary standard. And the only way to get rid of it is to capture the output stream and clean it up by hand, one string pattern at a time.
- And that reminds me of a
- And another Sharepoint gripe - why are all the interesting parts of my code inheriting stuff, that makes unit testing a real pain (I tried to mock my way through it once or twice, but the amount of code needed to test without invoking the database backend is beyond what I could justify even trying).
Just curious, how would you handle developing in a framework, where your non-trivial functionality is hard/impossible (within the constraints of the real world - i.e. you can't discard/rewrite major pieces of the infrastructure, you have to live with them) to unit test? An example that I'm familiar with is Microsofts Sharepoint. Given enough time one could either muck up the entire environment - something that would be very brittle (and another huge block of code to maintain), or one could script the creation of a virginal environment for each testcase - but that could add several minutes of setup time to each test case - not really what you want in a large project.
Don't get me wrong, I think unit tests are nice when they work, but unless you've got some tricks I haven't seen, you need to be able to control the inputs and capture the output of the unit you are testing. and unless you are building from scratch, it might be difficult to retain that level of control over units of a meaningful size (larger than "trivial" and smaller than "the entire system").
Well, corruption could be seen as a business process, so I guess the one could design, document and implement an ISO 9000 compliant process for paying and receiving bribes etc.
If so, that would be a very bad choice indeed!
In the absence of a MX record, a correctly functioning SMTP client must treat an A record like an implicit MX record with preference 0. Go read RFC2821, section 5 - it's all spelled out there.
Just to pick nits - the commonly used term is rubber-hose cryptanalysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis).
Why, assuming that you have sufficient disk space (but since you are arguing for loads of ram, adding enough disk should not be an issue), would you insist on keeping data in ram, if the operating system can use the space to hold something that you are more likely to need. I'm by no means an expert on virtual memory algorithms, but my understanding of the way a modern system is _supposed_ to work is: The computer has a number of different storage systems, the amount of which is usually reversely proportional to their performance. At the top of this pile is the registers and caches of the cpu and at the bottom harddisks, other physical media and network resources. The job of the OS and the cpu is to make sure that the capacity of each level is used for data that is more likely to be of use than than the data on the slower levels, but not useful enough to move even higher. With that in mind, I would very much like my OS to swap out any program that does not look like it will need to be in ram, if it means that more of the data I'm using can be in ram in return. So assuming that the algorithms used (in Windows - I know it is a stretch) are decent, you should indeed be able to avoid swapping by using enough ram - it might just be that the amount of ram you need is beyond even the large capacity of todays machines, and Windows might very well still insist on having _some_ swap, even if it should never be put to use.
Or as one of my coworkers just said: "XML is like alcohol, use enough and you can't see the problem".
Also note the wording in one of the diffs:
The word 'Alternatively' usually means that I may select either of the rules it stands between, not that I must abide by both.
Just installed this plugin, and in Word it does provide the option to set ODT as the default save format.
Microsoft should be tried fairly, but that includes being tried under the rules of the european laws and courts. Just because there are differences between the systems of justice, it does not mean that MS can run to the US system and ask for help, if the EU has a law or rule that MS doesn't like.
There is a good reason to judge code on readability: People have read and write it to make changes. The code can be as nice or as ugly as the coder wants to make it, as far as the compiler is concerned, so for the benefit of the next guy one might as well lean towards making it nice.
Surely SCO must be worth just a little more, no matter how much they have soiled the name. Something like $49.99 with a $15 mail-in rebate sounds about right. Provided that shipping is included.
Two points: You pay your contractor, right? So how about paying someone to be liable? What's "tastes horrible" and "contaminated" in software? How much care do I need to take when programming (you are not going to get bug-free for free or cheap) to not "contaminate" the program? If we look at your food sample analogy, lots of things could be wrong, without the food being "contaminated". You could be allergic to something in the food - is that my fault? Likewise in software, your system could be different in an unpredictable way causing my software to fail, no matter how well I wrote it. And a million other things, because software is alot more complex than cooking (unless you are talking Michelin Guide cooking - but I don't think they hand out samples or give many free meals).
The GPL is a copyright license. It grants you a number of rights that you would not otherwise have -- provided that you follow certain rules. If you read clause 0 of the actual text, http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, you'll see that it explicitly says that it only covers "copying, distribution and modification", because this is all that copyright regulates.
Besides, isn't XP something like "NT 5.1" internally, or some such thing?
Well, you assume that the people who do this could be "reassigned" to other projects, which might not be true, since they are not getting paid for it. If the choice is between people porting oss to odd platforms or no code at all, I'd prefer the porting.
The cases? Would you mind sharing some specs and an url?