Right there on the web page, under "Technology" of all subjects, it says
"
Increased advertising space - Within the footprint of a conventional touchscreen monitor, Deep Video Imaging monitors provide extra screen space for content and/or advertising."
Just what we needed -- even if we didn't think to ask.
Really, I'm not flaming or trolling, but there's something I just don't understand. If Linux copies UNIX, and if *BSD copies UNIX (and AIX, and HPUX, and Solaris, and etc. all copy UNIX), then why can't "UNIX" applications run on any of them?
OK, I know why. But really, as someone pointed out the other day, the Open Group will certify NT as a "UNIX" OS if it meets their criteria, so why isn't the real goal to get *BSD certified as an official "UNIX" (and, similarly, to get Linux certified as well)? If my suspicions are correct and the certification does not mean apps are portable, then we need better UNIX certification, not abandonment of the only available certification.
I also wonder how many people are scrambling to run *BSD binaries on their Linux boxes... Again, not to flame or troll, but I wonder about market share and how it affects software developers. Anyone know off-hand how many apps cleanly compile for both *BSD and Linux? (and yes, I know the story is about compatible binaries, not compatible source).
Hell, how many binaries run on all Linux distros (hopefully the Linux Standard Base will help)? So are we talking getting Red Hat binaries to run on BSD, or are we talking about Debian binaries, or does it matter?
Finally, it seems to me that it would be better to put the effort into making compiling the source so easy (transparent) that we don't care about binaries anymore. One real advantage of UNIX isn't that I can copy a binary file from my HPUX box and run it on my Solaris box, but rather that I can compile the same source on both boxes. This allows you to run UNIX on virtually any hardware and still find applications that will work -- you just have to compile them! Users new to UNIX have to learn all sorts of things that are different from the VAX/OS2/DOS/Windows/Amiga/Mac world they came from; why shouldn't compiling code be another thing all UNIX users learn?
It is unlawful to run code that belongs to other people
without their permission. Usually
companies give users a license (permission) to use their code, and it is totally legit for the *owner*
of the code to discriminate (or place restrictions on it's use) when letting other people use it.
Yes, I agree. However, as I read the GPL, when the author of a program releases it under the GPL they freely limit their own rights by granting to all users the right to run and copy the application and see the source code. By doing so they give up the right to place further restrictions on its use. As I see it, once they've squeezed that toothpaste out of the tube they can't put it back. Once they've granted all users the right to the source code, and the right to redistribute the code as they see fit (provided they also release the source), then they've given up those rights themselves, except as granted to them (and anyone else) by the GPL. In other words, once I grant you the right to modify my code provided you release the source of your modifications, doesn't that also bind me to release the source to any of my modifications? If not, why not?
And I'd still like to hear a lawyer answer that, whether you think I need one or not.
This question has come up before, and I've seen flavors of it in this discussion:
If I release code under the GPL, doesn't the GPL "virus" now infect my code and all derivitives? There are examples of GPL code that was simultaniously released under a different license, and examples of GPL code that was the basis for derivative works that were not released under the GPL. Please explain how this is legal, under the GPL.
Several Slashdotters have said things like "Naturally, the author is free to do this" but I don't see the "natural" connection. If I release version 1.0 under the GPL, my reading of the GPL is that the "virus" infects all versions of the code, and that if I tried to release version 2.0 under a proprietary license then someone else could sue me because my version 2.0 violated the GPL on version 1.0. Yes, I'm the author and I hold all the rights, but when I release my code under the GPL I give up some of my rights and transfer them to the software's users. Don't the people to whom I gave those rights in version 1.0 retain those rights to all subsequent versions? If not, why not? The only way I can see for anybody, even the original author, to modify GPL code and not release the new source is to not release the new binarys either.
Similarly, I don't understand how I, as author of the code, could possibly release it under the GPL and another license at the same time. Why doesn't the GPL trump the other license? If A can get the source under the GPL and do whatever they want with it, and I sell the same code under another license to B, what prevents B from using the GPL to give the code away to whomever B wants, even though B didn't buy it under the GPL?
The specific example is a company that releases their *NIX version under the GPL but releases a Windows version of the same code under a proprietary license with no source code. Why can't a user of the Windows version sue for the source code, citing the GPL on the *NIX version? Why doesn't the GPL on the *NIX version trump the proprietary license on the Windows version?
As for established players, they've got the advantage of being established, if they can't
adapt, let 'em sink. Most Republicans feel this way.
Most Republicans may feel this way, but I submit that most Republican politicians, especially the ones now in charge, feel the way I described it. Look at the history of anti-trust investigations. It's always the newcomer who changes the paradigm out from under the established players who gets sued for anti-trust. IBM radically changed the way companies do business and got hauled to court. AT&T radically changed the way companies do business and got hauled to court. Microsoft radically changed the way companies do business and got hauled to court. I keep telling my Microsoft friends they should be happy the DOJ went after them -- it's a sign that they've hit the big time and are now one of the players! The point is that the establishment always wants to keep things the way they are.
If you really believe the official position of the Republican Party is "if they can't adapt, let 'em sink" then you haven't paid attention to the pro-business efforts of Republicans across the country. Consider genetically modified food. The consumer groups attitude is that if GM food is safe, what's the problem with saying so on the label? The industry's position, with USDA support, is that the food is safe so why bother putting it on the label? If our Republican leadership truly believed as you say, they'd have no problem with putting the information on the label and letting the GM food industry sink if they can't adapt to a public backlash against GM foods.
In other words, I'll believe that you're right when I see our elected Republicans acting as you describe. So far, I don't.
In all fairness, I don't see much difference between our elected Democrats and our elected Republicans. Neither do Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, which is why they left those parties to go more right/left than the Repubicrat center.
We use the IEEE documentation standards. Of course, they charge for their intellectual property, but the company where I work is a member so it cost me zip. Of course, that means I can't use their documentation standards for any non-work activities, but the principles still apply:-)
If it helps, several of the IEE documents refer to corrisponding ISO documents, so you might try there.
Aren't you supposed to design an application before implemnting it in any way including putting
data in a DB? I've worked at two companies and had a ton of projects in school and none
involved implemnting the database before the application was designed.
Uh, you're both right and wrong here. Yes, you are right that one should design the application before implementing the database. But you are mistaken about one point: The first step to designing the application is to understand the problem, and that includes understanding the data. Understanding the data means modeling -- or if you will, designing -- the data (which is not the same as implementing the database). If you design the objects first, then try to figure out which data belongs to what object, you may overlook some important data. Despite the department name (INFORMATION Technology) half my job seems to be convincing people that the data is what really matters, not the color of the web page background.
It doesn't matter whether you are using OO techniques. I once took a class in OO design where the instructor pointed out that you can implement an OO design in just about any non-OO language. The point is how you look at the problem. If you are writing a program to track a fleet of taxis and you choose OO techniques where you model the taxis as individual objects with a set of attributes, so what? You can still implement the design in C or Cobol or assembly or whatever non-OO language you choose, and you can store the data in an RDBMS or a big flat file -- it's still an OO design. Perhaps implementation will be facilitated by using C++ or Smalltalk or whatever OO language you choose, and perhaps implementation would be easier with an OO database. Or perhaps not; as others have pointed out there are other factors to consider, such as existing skill sets.
Also, don't OO databases store their data in RDBMS systems? Or do they store their data in a big flat file? Or do they create a small, flat file for each object? Does it matter? I submit that it doesn't matter -- the OO design is a layer of abstraction on top of the implementation method. For all you care, Oracle can store their relational data in one big fat flat file; the fact that they store it in tables is an abstration on top of the actual storage mechanism. OO databases are, or should be, no different.
The article says OO databases are better because they involve less code. Less code for you, perhaps, but way more code for the people who wrote the OO database. An OO database gives the application designer a layer of abstraction. That layer of abstraction makes life easier for you, and you may believe it even makes your applications run faster, but it isn't necessary to implement an OO application.
When that OO layer of data abstraction becomes as common (both in terms of standardization and availability) as SQL, then we will see more OO designs implemented on OO databases. Until then, some of us are perfectly capable of implementing our OO designs with RDBMS's. Or, as someone once said (attributions welcome), "A good programmer can code Fortran in any language."
Things usually don't appear in Discover first. Discover takes stories that have appeared in the specialist, technical press and presents them for the masses. Scientific American does the same thing, only for more elite masses. 2600 does the same thing, only for more 37337 masses.
The geek in me (no-code tech) can't wait to try it myself. Where's the technical details?
The early adopter in me thinks this is wonderful, and can't wait to buy it. Where's the global-access web-surfing PDAs?
The pragmatist in me realizes we won't see this for many years. How long have we waited for Bluetooth?
The Democrat in me thinks this could bring widespread, afordable telecommunications to the masses, and should be encouraged. What's the problem, FCC, why won't you approve this?
The free-market capitalist in me says this could disrupt the established players in the business and should be watched closely. Who should I buy? Who should I short?
The Republican in me says this would disrupt the established players in many businesses and must be stopped. Why isn't the FCC working to ban this subversive activity?
You know, there was a special FAQ-entry for people like you:
Q: Can I create a Beowulf cluster using many Simputers?
A: You must be a/.er; in which you know the answer!
LOL! Yeah, I saw that after I posted. The answer, of course, is yes, you can create a Beowulf cluster of them. But I asked if you could imagine one, which frankly I can't. Because, as others have pointed out, I can't imagine why everyone on the planet would want -- let alone need -- one of these. Still, if this truely is a computer for the masses, then isn't the next logical step to interconnect all these masses? And if they're interconnected, why not utilize all this power that will undoubtedly go idle for at least 8 hours a day?
If you think my proposal was silly, then you now know my opinon of their proposal.
I would rather relinquish my computer than give up this keyboard.
I would have to relinquish my computer to afford this keyboard! This one (the one you bought?) is more affordable, but it doesn't look like the hands are angled to use it comfortably. Still, I'd like to try it. Thanks for the reference, and I'm glad you like yours.
DataDesk Technologies make a keyboard with keys in straight lines. They also make the more
distant keys larger, so they're easier to hit. Check out the 'SmartBoard' at
http://www.datadesktech.com/products.htm
This may be exactly what I'm looking for! Thanks a lot! Now I have to find a local dealer so I can try one -- I showed the web page to my wife, and she's interested too. Thanks again.
The spectrum shouldn't be sold (to the highest bidder, or any private entity)--if this is allowed,
then the U.S. government will have again abdicated its rightful role as steward of the airwaves for
the less lofty role of plundering profiteer.
Where have you been? Lately the spectrum has been sold, which was considered an improvement since the previous policy was to give it away free! Indeed, not too long ago (in human years; in political years it was eons ago) the FCC gave away television licenses to anyone with a radio station who was willing to take on the expense of buying a TV transmitter and some cameras, build a studio, etc. In other words, they gave a license to print money to anyone who wanted to buy a printing press.
You're absolutely correct. The FCC should not sell the airwaves to the highest bidder, it should lease them to the highest bidder for a limited time (say, five years), with everyone getting an equal shot at the lease when it expires. As it is now, the "lease" never expires, it's a one-time license fee good for eternity (or the collapse of the U.S. Government, whichever comes first. The collapse of the purchaser does not end the "lease", as the creditors, heirs, successors, buyers, etc. get the license.)
McCaw Cellular paid what many thought were outlandish license fees for their cellular airwaves, which McCaw then sold to AT&T for a rather large fortune. AT&T now enjoy their use for free, for ever (or until they sell them). McCaw now looks like the genius he is, and the FCC look like the fools they are. So Congress told the FCC "Good work, now sell these other companies a similar license to steal for pennies on the dollar." And the FCC complied.
Still, it's a better deal than what our gummint charges to log, mine, or graze cattle on public lands. And it's a blast of fresh air compared to what our new gummint wants to charge oil companies for the right to destroy the Alaskan tundra.
I won't buy any of the so-called ergonomic keyboards until they fix the main problem with the standard keyboard: Based upon an obsolete mechanical need to offset the keys, it's taylored for the right hand but inhibits the left hand. No, I'm not left-handed! Try this simple experiment: Place your hands on the home row (with your left index finger on "F" and your right index finger on "J" -- the keys with the bumps or dimples that help you find the home row). Now press the "U" key with your right index finger without bumping it into the neighboring right-hand middle finger. Good. Now press the "R" key with your left index finger without bumping it into the neighboring left middle finger. Can you? I can't, and neither can anyone I know. That's because the keys are all lined up in diagonal rows from upper left to lower right. I'll buy the first ergonomic keyboard that slants the left-hand keys from the upper right down to the lower left, as they should be.
What I'm waiting for is a keyboard where I can pull the keys off and place them back down wherever I want them. If I want "A" next to "P" that's my business! If I want the left and right halfs to mirror each other, that's my business, too, and it makes far more sense to me than any of the "ergonomic" layouts I've tried (or seen).
I suspect you're just
being a piddly pedantic pain. You were trolling and are pissed because you got called on it, fess up.
Of course I'm being a "piddly pedantic pain" (great line; mind if I use it sometime?)! But please don't say you didn't deserve it, with your line:
If you have a serial port, lots of 80-column terminals "support Windows," whatever the hell
that means.
If you didn't know what it means, why did you make the claim?
No, I won't "fess up" to being a troll, because that's not what I intended. My point was totally missed, so I was trying to correct my original mistake, which was not to explicitly state I was talking about physical terminals that are physically limited to 80 columns. I didn't think I needed to be so explicit because the entire discussion makes no sense if we're talking about terminal emulation, because then we are not at all limited to 80 columns! Read the entire discussion and you will see I am correct -- the entire discussion makes no sense!
"Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I read email in a terminal window and can't see these long lines" Give me a break! You call me a troll and let them off? If they can't see the long lines because they don't want to use a mail reader that knows how to wrap long lines, why should the rest of us suffer for their lazyness/stupidity? I asked "And besides, when was the last time you read email on an 80 column terminal?" and so far noone has said that they are stuck with an 80 column terminal. But several said they are "stuck" with an 80 column terminal emulator on their modern PC running a modern operating system. Their computer is perfectly capable of running a terminal emulator with 30 columnns or 128 columns or 256 columns or 12 columns or whatever they choose, and when they claimed otherwise I called them on it. Period. No troll, just fact.
Sorry if my posts don't live up to everyone's expectations of/., where every opinion is equally valid as long as you agree with it, anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, and anyone who points out your errors is flaming you.
i don't see the important distinction between a terminal and a terminal emulator. they both display exactly 80
columns of text. stop being a twat.
The distinction is this: If you're running a terminal, then that's all you can do. If you're running a terminal emulator, then you can run other software as well, so you're not nearly as limited in your choices as someone with a physical terminal. In the case of this discussion, the question was whether we should force all email to be wrapped at 78 columns when it is sent, or allow it to be sent as long lines which are then wrapped by the displaying email software. If you are running a terminal with, say, elm, your choices are very limited. If you're running a terminal emulator that is displaying elm, then your choice of elm in an emulated terminal is a personal one and you choose to ignore other options available to you. My point being that very few if any of the people using email today are limited by physical terminals that only have 80 columns and cannot wrap long lines. So far everyone who's claimed to be in such a situation is, in fact, using a PC of some sort and using terminal emulation that limits them to 80 non-wrapped columns by their own choice. So my position is that they should not force 78 column line wrap on the rest of us.
Oh, and if your terminal emulator displays exactly 80 columns, then that too is your choice. Either re-size the damn window or get another, more flexible, terminal emulator.
Sorry if you think I'm a "twat". I'm picky sometimes, but I didn't know that made me a "twat". Twit, maybe, but not twat:-)
And besides, when was the last time you read email on an 80 column terminal?
how about every day? i read my mail using mutt via a putty session. there are millions of people who read
their mail in 80 column terminals with pine, mutt, exmh, emacs etc. i for one can't stand reading email (or
anything) in a full-screen outlook express window that is about 400 columns wide. it's damn near impossible
You do not read your email on an 80 column terminal. You read your email on a PC using a terminal emulator that you artificially limit to 80 columns for your own reasons. But you do not use an 80 column terminal!
Oh, and a 400 column terminal is not impossible to read if you have a large enough monitor. And the columns of your 80 column terminal emulator are no wider (easier to read) than the 400 columns of your display; the 80 you use are not any wider than the 320 you do not use. If they are, then you're using a larger font and you could easily use that larger font in the other windows to cut them down from 400 columns to something more readable. I don't use outlook express, so I can't tell you how to change its font, but any Windoze user who uses mutt via a putty session should be able to figure it out themselves:-)
Christianity is not a culture, it's a religion.
I did not say it was a culture; I said my culture is based on Christianity
That's where we fundimentally differ. If I agree to this point, then I agree to all your other points. But I don't. I don't believe your culture is based upon Christianity. I do believe it is based upon someone's idea of what they think Christianity is, but it's not my idea of Christianity.
Many people try to label their bias and prejudice as "christianity" and defend it with the banner of
religious freedom but it's all redneck asshole intolerance to me.
Racial slurs aside (must be a part-time-attend-Easter-and-Christmas-only-Christi an), my arguement is
about freedom for all.
It wasn't a racial slur, it was a geographic one. My mistake; instead of 'redneck' I should have said 'cracker'.
You may come from a culture of intolerance, but don't call that "christianity". True Christianity is
all about tolerance (Love your neighbor as yourself and all that).
Since you don't know me, I don't know how you came up with that conclusion.
You said "Northern schools" and then went on about how you were prevented from sharing your "culture" with your classmates because it was a "christian-based" culture. I believe you were prevented from sharing your religious beliefs with your classmates, and to me you apparantly equate proselytizing with "sharing your culture." That is what makes me think that your "culture" is one of intolerance (typically found within the "bible belt" as the earlier post put it). Consider the example of the Methodist family from Wisconsin who moved to (I believe it was) Alabama, and were called Devil Worshipers by the Baptist town. This is intolerance, and it's ingrained in their (the Baptist's) culture, but it certainly is NOT based on Christianity. Sharing this "culture" would certainly involve telling everyone else that they are damned to Hell if they don't change their evil ways and do as the majority, and your post sounded like that's what you were trying to do. If you believe that culture is "christ-based" then you may have a point, but I believe that culture is intolerance-based, and that your teachers were correct in preventing you from "sharing" it with your non-Christian classmates.
If you have a serial port, lots of 80-column terminals "support Windows," whatever the hell that means. But
since you're obviously trolling people who were on what you call the WWW before you were out of
diapers, you might already know that.
If you'd think for just one moment and read the whole post you'd see that I was not referring to a terminal working with a computer that runs the MS Windows operating system, I was referring to physical 80 column terminals that, on their screens, support windows (as in XWindows or even MS Windows' style windows). I have never seen an 80 column terminal do that. But then, I have not seen every dumb terminal ever made. The man claimed to have a terminal displaying several windows, so I asked what terminal that was. But it was a retorical question, because it was obvious that he was not displaying several windows on his terminal, his "terminal" was an emulated one, and it was one of the windows displayed on his computer screen.
And while I have a few holes in my head, I do not have a serial port. By your logic, "lots of 80-column terminals" must not "support Windows" (since your statement depends upon me having a serial port, which I don't, although most of my computers do. Heck, I think maybe even my Sinclair does, so that would be all of 'em.). Am I being picky here? Of course! Since you miss subtile clues I'll be blunt: you clearly don't proofread your own words any better than you read other's words. You should refrain from posting until you both understand what you're reading and understand what you're saying.
Oh, and I was out of diapers around 1957. So if I was trolling anyone (I was not) it certainly wasn't the group you imagine. And I have never called the Internet "the WWW", so you must have me confused with someone else.
It is also akin to schools in the north saying you can't teach creationism (or at least acknowledge that some
people believe that) - schools seems to repress Christianity which can be damaging to children whose
culture is based around Christianity.
What nonsense! As a Christian, this offends me. Christianity is not a culture, it's a religion. Many people try to label their bias and prejudice as "christianity" and defend it with the banner of religious freedom but it's all redneck asshole intolerance to me. You may come from a culture of intolerance, but don't call that "christianity". True Christianity is all about tolerance (Love your neighbor as yourself and all that).
"Creationism" is not science, it's religious belief foisted upon school boards in a cloak of psudo-science in an attempt to get around the First Amendment. Next time you want to force everyone in your community to pray to your god, think how you'd feel if someone else tried to make you pray to their god.
Finally, this (the RIAA legal threats) is nothing like the example you site. It's more like if, say, you wished to teach a class in comparitive religion and the Scientologists sued you for using their copyrighted materials. For that reason alone your post is not at all "insightful" (more like "inciteful") and should have been modded down as Flamebait.
I like my stuff staying 80 characters.
And to prevent any replies saying, "Old fogie, get with the times." I'm only 21.
Old fogie, get with the times. Get a mail reader that knows how to wrap long lines to 80 characters; there's no need for the whole world to wrap their lines for you, you should be able to wrap them yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Just what we needed -- even if we didn't think to ask.
OK, I know why. But really, as someone pointed out the other day, the Open Group will certify NT as a "UNIX" OS if it meets their criteria, so why isn't the real goal to get *BSD certified as an official "UNIX" (and, similarly, to get Linux certified as well)? If my suspicions are correct and the certification does not mean apps are portable, then we need better UNIX certification, not abandonment of the only available certification.
I also wonder how many people are scrambling to run *BSD binaries on their Linux boxes... Again, not to flame or troll, but I wonder about market share and how it affects software developers. Anyone know off-hand how many apps cleanly compile for both *BSD and Linux? (and yes, I know the story is about compatible binaries, not compatible source).
Hell, how many binaries run on all Linux distros (hopefully the Linux Standard Base will help)? So are we talking getting Red Hat binaries to run on BSD, or are we talking about Debian binaries, or does it matter?
Finally, it seems to me that it would be better to put the effort into making compiling the source so easy (transparent) that we don't care about binaries anymore. One real advantage of UNIX isn't that I can copy a binary file from my HPUX box and run it on my Solaris box, but rather that I can compile the same source on both boxes. This allows you to run UNIX on virtually any hardware and still find applications that will work -- you just have to compile them! Users new to UNIX have to learn all sorts of things that are different from the VAX/OS2/DOS/Windows/Amiga/Mac world they came from; why shouldn't compiling code be another thing all UNIX users learn?
Yes, I agree. However, as I read the GPL, when the author of a program releases it under the GPL they freely limit their own rights by granting to all users the right to run and copy the application and see the source code. By doing so they give up the right to place further restrictions on its use. As I see it, once they've squeezed that toothpaste out of the tube they can't put it back. Once they've granted all users the right to the source code, and the right to redistribute the code as they see fit (provided they also release the source), then they've given up those rights themselves, except as granted to them (and anyone else) by the GPL. In other words, once I grant you the right to modify my code provided you release the source of your modifications, doesn't that also bind me to release the source to any of my modifications? If not, why not?
And I'd still like to hear a lawyer answer that, whether you think I need one or not.
If I release code under the GPL, doesn't the GPL "virus" now infect my code and all derivitives? There are examples of GPL code that was simultaniously released under a different license, and examples of GPL code that was the basis for derivative works that were not released under the GPL. Please explain how this is legal, under the GPL.
Several Slashdotters have said things like "Naturally, the author is free to do this" but I don't see the "natural" connection. If I release version 1.0 under the GPL, my reading of the GPL is that the "virus" infects all versions of the code, and that if I tried to release version 2.0 under a proprietary license then someone else could sue me because my version 2.0 violated the GPL on version 1.0. Yes, I'm the author and I hold all the rights, but when I release my code under the GPL I give up some of my rights and transfer them to the software's users. Don't the people to whom I gave those rights in version 1.0 retain those rights to all subsequent versions? If not, why not? The only way I can see for anybody, even the original author, to modify GPL code and not release the new source is to not release the new binarys either.
Similarly, I don't understand how I, as author of the code, could possibly release it under the GPL and another license at the same time. Why doesn't the GPL trump the other license? If A can get the source under the GPL and do whatever they want with it, and I sell the same code under another license to B, what prevents B from using the GPL to give the code away to whomever B wants, even though B didn't buy it under the GPL?
The specific example is a company that releases their *NIX version under the GPL but releases a Windows version of the same code under a proprietary license with no source code. Why can't a user of the Windows version sue for the source code, citing the GPL on the *NIX version? Why doesn't the GPL on the *NIX version trump the proprietary license on the Windows version?
Most Republicans may feel this way, but I submit that most Republican politicians, especially the ones now in charge, feel the way I described it. Look at the history of anti-trust investigations. It's always the newcomer who changes the paradigm out from under the established players who gets sued for anti-trust. IBM radically changed the way companies do business and got hauled to court. AT&T radically changed the way companies do business and got hauled to court. Microsoft radically changed the way companies do business and got hauled to court. I keep telling my Microsoft friends they should be happy the DOJ went after them -- it's a sign that they've hit the big time and are now one of the players! The point is that the establishment always wants to keep things the way they are.
If you really believe the official position of the Republican Party is "if they can't adapt, let 'em sink" then you haven't paid attention to the pro-business efforts of Republicans across the country. Consider genetically modified food. The consumer groups attitude is that if GM food is safe, what's the problem with saying so on the label? The industry's position, with USDA support, is that the food is safe so why bother putting it on the label? If our Republican leadership truly believed as you say, they'd have no problem with putting the information on the label and letting the GM food industry sink if they can't adapt to a public backlash against GM foods.
In other words, I'll believe that you're right when I see our elected Republicans acting as you describe. So far, I don't.
In all fairness, I don't see much difference between our elected Democrats and our elected Republicans. Neither do Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, which is why they left those parties to go more right/left than the Repubicrat center.
If it helps, several of the IEE documents refer to corrisponding ISO documents, so you might try there.
Uh, you're both right and wrong here. Yes, you are right that one should design the application before implementing the database. But you are mistaken about one point: The first step to designing the application is to understand the problem, and that includes understanding the data. Understanding the data means modeling -- or if you will, designing -- the data (which is not the same as implementing the database). If you design the objects first, then try to figure out which data belongs to what object, you may overlook some important data. Despite the department name (INFORMATION Technology) half my job seems to be convincing people that the data is what really matters, not the color of the web page background.
It doesn't matter whether you are using OO techniques. I once took a class in OO design where the instructor pointed out that you can implement an OO design in just about any non-OO language. The point is how you look at the problem. If you are writing a program to track a fleet of taxis and you choose OO techniques where you model the taxis as individual objects with a set of attributes, so what? You can still implement the design in C or Cobol or assembly or whatever non-OO language you choose, and you can store the data in an RDBMS or a big flat file -- it's still an OO design. Perhaps implementation will be facilitated by using C++ or Smalltalk or whatever OO language you choose, and perhaps implementation would be easier with an OO database. Or perhaps not; as others have pointed out there are other factors to consider, such as existing skill sets.
Also, don't OO databases store their data in RDBMS systems? Or do they store their data in a big flat file? Or do they create a small, flat file for each object? Does it matter? I submit that it doesn't matter -- the OO design is a layer of abstraction on top of the implementation method. For all you care, Oracle can store their relational data in one big fat flat file; the fact that they store it in tables is an abstration on top of the actual storage mechanism. OO databases are, or should be, no different.
The article says OO databases are better because they involve less code. Less code for you, perhaps, but way more code for the people who wrote the OO database. An OO database gives the application designer a layer of abstraction. That layer of abstraction makes life easier for you, and you may believe it even makes your applications run faster, but it isn't necessary to implement an OO application.
When that OO layer of data abstraction becomes as common (both in terms of standardization and availability) as SQL, then we will see more OO designs implemented on OO databases. Until then, some of us are perfectly capable of implementing our OO designs with RDBMS's. Or, as someone once said (attributions welcome), "A good programmer can code Fortran in any language."
The early adopter in me thinks this is wonderful, and can't wait to buy it. Where's the global-access web-surfing PDAs?
The pragmatist in me realizes we won't see this for many years. How long have we waited for Bluetooth?
The Democrat in me thinks this could bring widespread, afordable telecommunications to the masses, and should be encouraged. What's the problem, FCC, why won't you approve this?
The free-market capitalist in me says this could disrupt the established players in the business and should be watched closely. Who should I buy? Who should I short?
The Republican in me says this would disrupt the established players in many businesses and must be stopped. Why isn't the FCC working to ban this subversive activity?
The cynic in me notes who's in charge now. Guess who will win?
I've had the same problems. Apparantly Slashdot has been Slashdotted. Perhaps you should Ask Slashdot about this.
LOL! Yeah, I saw that after I posted. The answer, of course, is yes, you can create a Beowulf cluster of them. But I asked if you could imagine one, which frankly I can't. Because, as others have pointed out, I can't imagine why everyone on the planet would want -- let alone need -- one of these. Still, if this truely is a computer for the masses, then isn't the next logical step to interconnect all these masses? And if they're interconnected, why not utilize all this power that will undoubtedly go idle for at least 8 hours a day?
If you think my proposal was silly, then you now know my opinon of their proposal.
. "Doh! What about it?"
Gotta love question 10, too :-)
I would have to relinquish my computer to afford this keyboard! This one (the one you bought?) is more affordable, but it doesn't look like the hands are angled to use it comfortably. Still, I'd like to try it. Thanks for the reference, and I'm glad you like yours.
This may be exactly what I'm looking for! Thanks a lot! Now I have to find a local dealer so I can try one -- I showed the web page to my wife, and she's interested too. Thanks again.
Where have you been? Lately the spectrum has been sold, which was considered an improvement since the previous policy was to give it away free! Indeed, not too long ago (in human years; in political years it was eons ago) the FCC gave away television licenses to anyone with a radio station who was willing to take on the expense of buying a TV transmitter and some cameras, build a studio, etc. In other words, they gave a license to print money to anyone who wanted to buy a printing press.
You're absolutely correct. The FCC should not sell the airwaves to the highest bidder, it should lease them to the highest bidder for a limited time (say, five years), with everyone getting an equal shot at the lease when it expires. As it is now, the "lease" never expires, it's a one-time license fee good for eternity (or the collapse of the U.S. Government, whichever comes first. The collapse of the purchaser does not end the "lease", as the creditors, heirs, successors, buyers, etc. get the license.)
McCaw Cellular paid what many thought were outlandish license fees for their cellular airwaves, which McCaw then sold to AT&T for a rather large fortune. AT&T now enjoy their use for free, for ever (or until they sell them). McCaw now looks like the genius he is, and the FCC look like the fools they are. So Congress told the FCC "Good work, now sell these other companies a similar license to steal for pennies on the dollar." And the FCC complied.
Still, it's a better deal than what our gummint charges to log, mine, or graze cattle on public lands. And it's a blast of fresh air compared to what our new gummint wants to charge oil companies for the right to destroy the Alaskan tundra.
What I'm waiting for is a keyboard where I can pull the keys off and place them back down wherever I want them. If I want "A" next to "P" that's my business! If I want the left and right halfs to mirror each other, that's my business, too, and it makes far more sense to me than any of the "ergonomic" layouts I've tried (or seen).
Hmmm. I guess my Poloroid camera with the big gold disk in front is really using sound to measure distance, not 'sonar' as they claim. Or vice versa.
Of course I'm being a "piddly pedantic pain" (great line; mind if I use it sometime?)! But please don't say you didn't deserve it, with your line:
If you didn't know what it means, why did you make the claim?
No, I won't "fess up" to being a troll, because that's not what I intended. My point was totally missed, so I was trying to correct my original mistake, which was not to explicitly state I was talking about physical terminals that are physically limited to 80 columns. I didn't think I needed to be so explicit because the entire discussion makes no sense if we're talking about terminal emulation, because then we are not at all limited to 80 columns! Read the entire discussion and you will see I am correct -- the entire discussion makes no sense!
"Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I read email in a terminal window and can't see these long lines" Give me a break! You call me a troll and let them off? If they can't see the long lines because they don't want to use a mail reader that knows how to wrap long lines, why should the rest of us suffer for their lazyness/stupidity? I asked "And besides, when was the last time you read email on an 80 column terminal?" and so far noone has said that they are stuck with an 80 column terminal. But several said they are "stuck" with an 80 column terminal emulator on their modern PC running a modern operating system. Their computer is perfectly capable of running a terminal emulator with 30 columnns or 128 columns or 256 columns or 12 columns or whatever they choose, and when they claimed otherwise I called them on it. Period. No troll, just fact.
Sorry if my posts don't live up to everyone's expectations of /., where every opinion is equally valid as long as you agree with it, anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, and anyone who points out your errors is flaming you.
The distinction is this: If you're running a terminal, then that's all you can do. If you're running a terminal emulator, then you can run other software as well, so you're not nearly as limited in your choices as someone with a physical terminal. In the case of this discussion, the question was whether we should force all email to be wrapped at 78 columns when it is sent, or allow it to be sent as long lines which are then wrapped by the displaying email software. If you are running a terminal with, say, elm, your choices are very limited. If you're running a terminal emulator that is displaying elm, then your choice of elm in an emulated terminal is a personal one and you choose to ignore other options available to you. My point being that very few if any of the people using email today are limited by physical terminals that only have 80 columns and cannot wrap long lines. So far everyone who's claimed to be in such a situation is, in fact, using a PC of some sort and using terminal emulation that limits them to 80 non-wrapped columns by their own choice. So my position is that they should not force 78 column line wrap on the rest of us.
Oh, and if your terminal emulator displays exactly 80 columns, then that too is your choice. Either re-size the damn window or get another, more flexible, terminal emulator.
Sorry if you think I'm a "twat". I'm picky sometimes, but I didn't know that made me a "twat". Twit, maybe, but not twat :-)
You do not read your email on an 80 column terminal. You read your email on a PC using a terminal emulator that you artificially limit to 80 columns for your own reasons. But you do not use an 80 column terminal!
Oh, and a 400 column terminal is not impossible to read if you have a large enough monitor. And the columns of your 80 column terminal emulator are no wider (easier to read) than the 400 columns of your display; the 80 you use are not any wider than the 320 you do not use. If they are, then you're using a larger font and you could easily use that larger font in the other windows to cut them down from 400 columns to something more readable. I don't use outlook express, so I can't tell you how to change its font, but any Windoze user who uses mutt via a putty session should be able to figure it out themselves :-)
That's where we fundimentally differ. If I agree to this point, then I agree to all your other points. But I don't. I don't believe your culture is based upon Christianity. I do believe it is based upon someone's idea of what they think Christianity is, but it's not my idea of Christianity.
It wasn't a racial slur, it was a geographic one. My mistake; instead of 'redneck' I should have said 'cracker'.
You said "Northern schools" and then went on about how you were prevented from sharing your "culture" with your classmates because it was a "christian-based" culture. I believe you were prevented from sharing your religious beliefs with your classmates, and to me you apparantly equate proselytizing with "sharing your culture." That is what makes me think that your "culture" is one of intolerance (typically found within the "bible belt" as the earlier post put it). Consider the example of the Methodist family from Wisconsin who moved to (I believe it was) Alabama, and were called Devil Worshipers by the Baptist town. This is intolerance, and it's ingrained in their (the Baptist's) culture, but it certainly is NOT based on Christianity. Sharing this "culture" would certainly involve telling everyone else that they are damned to Hell if they don't change their evil ways and do as the majority, and your post sounded like that's what you were trying to do. If you believe that culture is "christ-based" then you may have a point, but I believe that culture is intolerance-based, and that your teachers were correct in preventing you from "sharing" it with your non-Christian classmates.
If you'd think for just one moment and read the whole post you'd see that I was not referring to a terminal working with a computer that runs the MS Windows operating system, I was referring to physical 80 column terminals that, on their screens, support windows (as in XWindows or even MS Windows' style windows). I have never seen an 80 column terminal do that. But then, I have not seen every dumb terminal ever made. The man claimed to have a terminal displaying several windows, so I asked what terminal that was. But it was a retorical question, because it was obvious that he was not displaying several windows on his terminal, his "terminal" was an emulated one, and it was one of the windows displayed on his computer screen.
And while I have a few holes in my head, I do not have a serial port. By your logic, "lots of 80-column terminals" must not "support Windows" (since your statement depends upon me having a serial port, which I don't, although most of my computers do. Heck, I think maybe even my Sinclair does, so that would be all of 'em.). Am I being picky here? Of course! Since you miss subtile clues I'll be blunt: you clearly don't proofread your own words any better than you read other's words. You should refrain from posting until you both understand what you're reading and understand what you're saying.
Oh, and I was out of diapers around 1957. So if I was trolling anyone (I was not) it certainly wasn't the group you imagine. And I have never called the Internet "the WWW", so you must have me confused with someone else.
What nonsense! As a Christian, this offends me. Christianity is not a culture, it's a religion. Many people try to label their bias and prejudice as "christianity" and defend it with the banner of religious freedom but it's all redneck asshole intolerance to me. You may come from a culture of intolerance, but don't call that "christianity". True Christianity is all about tolerance (Love your neighbor as yourself and all that).
"Creationism" is not science, it's religious belief foisted upon school boards in a cloak of psudo-science in an attempt to get around the First Amendment. Next time you want to force everyone in your community to pray to your god, think how you'd feel if someone else tried to make you pray to their god.
Finally, this (the RIAA legal threats) is nothing like the example you site. It's more like if, say, you wished to teach a class in comparitive religion and the Scientologists sued you for using their copyrighted materials. For that reason alone your post is not at all "insightful" (more like "inciteful") and should have been modded down as Flamebait.
Old fogie, get with the times. Get a mail reader that knows how to wrap long lines to 80 characters; there's no need for the whole world to wrap their lines for you, you should be able to wrap them yourself.