> There's no mention of the Moon or Mars in the translated article
The original article starts with -
"Interfax reports that Russia is going to construct a spaceship assembly factory to service Moon and Mars flights. This has been announced by Anatoly Perminov, the head of RosCosmos agency"
> Create two brands, say "Wikipedia Core" and "Wikipedia Fringe"
And the whole will repeat itself over what belongs to the Core and what should go into the Fringe. Besides, the fringe content will frequently be not a standalone article, but rather a part of it. Two parts core, three parts fringe. These *will* be intermixed, so how exactly these can be divorced into Core and Fringe versions of the article is absolutely unclear.
Your idea is elegant and has a lot of merit. Unfortunately its elegance breaks up when it meets the cruel world of implementation details:)
I guess I fall under the "inclusionist" type as I wholeheartedly believe that nuking the content in a favor of a formal compliance with a policy du jour is a wrong thing to do. Deleting is easy, creating is hard. And re-creating is nearly impossible. If you tried resurrecting a deleted Wikipedia article, you know what I mean.
Fischer's demise is oddly similar to that of Luzhin from The Defence novel by Nabokov. The main character was also a genius chess player that was drifting between the clear mind and the insanity. What's even more odd is that the novel dates back to early 1930s.
* to solicit improvements (see Linux) * to facilitate adoption (through implementation transparency, see OpenVPN and TrueCrypt) * for personal reasons (to brag or to support political agenda, see libevent or IO language)
These can be mixed and matched, but it typically helps to understand WHY you are open-sourcing. That's a first step.
Second step, if you want to make some $, is determining (funny enough) your business model. You can make money off the open-source either via the support or via dual-licensing.
Support model does not really scale, because in order to earn twice the money, you have put a double effort. It is also more of a sales task, which you may or may not have an inclination or an ability to so.
Dual-licensing *is* a way to go, but it implies that the code is non-trivial, solid and mature. Otherwise it does not make any sense for a 3rf party to become dependent on something that's not quite ready with an uncertain future. This automatically implies that you should not be open-sourcing the code that needs work.
Keep in mind that it's often possible to find someone willing to purchase the project as is from you. Depending on the arrangement you may also retain a right to influence further development of the product and/or land a mid-term contract gig.
As one of our instructors back in the Uni used to say - "we don't teach you THE language, we teach you how to LEARN the language". That's pretty much the most important SKILL anyone should master in the college. CompSci or not.
As far as the actual knowledge goes, I have always been of an opinion that a graduate that knows 5 types of balanced trees is worth a bunch of dodos that "know" 5 languages. In the end the CompSci is all about an abstract thinking ability. Therefore the foundation - data structures, algorithms, db principles, grammars, etc - needs to be there and the rest will follow.
Outside of/. this sort of news "wrapper" articles (BB or not) is considered a blog spam. There is absolutely no reason to link to a wrapper, when it just rehashes what's in the original article and then forwards to it for details (which is what a vast majority of readers would want anyways).
I can't say with certainty why the bill has been delayed, nor whether it will be for a day or two, or for longer. I think that this presents an excellent opportunity for Prentice to engage in broader consultation and hold off introducing the bill until 2008.
The actual problem is resolving all external dependencies of Windows-bound binaries. If the Win32 API is somehow emulated (see Wine project for some "minor" details), this leaves (an ungodly mess of) COM interfaces. Then even if this is taken care of, Apple is going to be quite exposed to a legal beating from MS.
Lastly, "Is Apple planning native PE execution within OSX?" - if they were _planning_ that, they wouldn't include this into a production release of the OS. This means that it's already used for something. The big question is what exactly.
libarc borrows heavily from zlib, which is.. surprise !.. BSD licensed. There is however no mention of BSD in libarc, which effectively means that it is in violation of BSD license.
Consider low-level handshake protocols. There is, for example, an attack on SSL that allows recovering private RSA key by measuring response delays of a victim. These responses are mandated by a protocol, so they are (in a way) solicited.
Slashdot Mirror
.. "a citation needed", especially for the "does not want to pay for them" part.
> There's no mention of the Moon or Mars in the translated article
The original article starts with -
"Interfax reports that Russia is going to construct a spaceship assembly factory to service Moon and Mars flights. This has been announced by Anatoly Perminov, the head of RosCosmos agency"
Make sure you know where to get one in case of an emergency.
Relocating Spitzer to Nanaimo is going to be a punishment enough.
> and fuck knows if there's a solution to that dilemma
:-p
Technically this is not a dilemma as "dilemma" is a problem that has two solutions.
> Create two brands, say "Wikipedia Core" and "Wikipedia Fringe"
:)
And the whole will repeat itself over what belongs to the Core and what should go into the Fringe. Besides, the fringe content will frequently be not a standalone article, but rather a part of it. Two parts core, three parts fringe. These *will* be intermixed, so how exactly these can be divorced into Core and Fringe versions of the article is absolutely unclear.
Your idea is elegant and has a lot of merit.
Unfortunately its elegance breaks up when it meets the cruel world of implementation details
I guess I fall under the "inclusionist" type as I wholeheartedly believe that
nuking the content in a favor of a formal compliance with a policy du jour
is a wrong thing to do. Deleting is easy, creating is hard. And re-creating
is nearly impossible. If you tried resurrecting a deleted Wikipedia article,
you know what I mean.
.. that you are in a firing range of nuclear missiles.
> Actually, the man succumbed to mental illness.
Fischer's demise is oddly similar to that of Luzhin from The Defence novel by Nabokov. The main character was also a genius chess player that was drifting between the clear mind and the insanity. What's even more odd is that the novel dates back to early 1930s.
There are three core reasons to open-source -
* to solicit improvements (see Linux)
* to facilitate adoption (through implementation transparency, see OpenVPN and TrueCrypt)
* for personal reasons (to brag or to support political agenda, see libevent or IO language)
These can be mixed and matched, but it typically helps to understand WHY you are open-sourcing. That's a first step.
Second step, if you want to make some $, is determining (funny enough) your business model. You can make money off the open-source either via the support or via dual-licensing.
Support model does not really scale, because in order to earn twice the money, you have put a double effort. It is also more of a sales task, which you may or may not have an inclination or an ability to so.
Dual-licensing *is* a way to go, but it implies that the code is non-trivial, solid and mature. Otherwise it does not make any sense for a 3rf party to become dependent on something that's not quite ready with an uncertain future. This automatically implies that you should not be open-sourcing the code that needs work.
Keep in mind that it's often possible to find someone willing to purchase the project as is from you. Depending on the arrangement you may also retain a right to influence further development of the product and/or land a mid-term contract gig.
2c
Write an arithmetic expression calculator.
:-/
E.g. compute the value of "2*(3+5*7)".
We used to ask this as an interview question and a disturbing number of
"senior developers" didn't even know from which end to approach it
As one of our instructors back in the Uni used to say - "we don't teach you THE language, we teach you how to LEARN the language". That's pretty much the most important SKILL anyone should master in the college. CompSci or not.
:)
As far as the actual knowledge goes, I have always been of an opinion that a graduate that knows 5 types of balanced trees is worth a bunch of dodos that "know" 5 languages. In the end the CompSci is all about an abstract thinking ability. Therefore the foundation - data structures, algorithms, db principles, grammars, etc - needs to be there and the rest will follow.
Feel free to disagree
Outside of /. this sort of news "wrapper" articles (BB or not) is considered a blog spam. There is absolutely no reason to link to a wrapper, when it just rehashes what's in the original article and then forwards to it for details (which is what a vast majority of readers would want anyways).
Stress -> Adrenalin & Norepinephrine -> Physical and mental euphoria
:)
Hardly works for an open source, though some uber-optimization can give a brain spasm to those trying to fix a bug in it
Very nice, very nice.
How much ?
The actual problem is resolving all external dependencies of Windows-bound binaries. If the Win32 API is somehow emulated (see Wine project for some "minor" details), this leaves (an ungodly mess of) COM interfaces. Then even if this is taken care of, Apple is going to be quite exposed to a legal beating from MS.
Lastly, "Is Apple planning native PE execution within OSX?" - if they were _planning_ that, they wouldn't include this into a production release of the OS. This means that it's already used for something. The big question is what exactly.
> 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
and libarc removed it
libarc borrows heavily from zlib, which is .. surprise ! .. BSD licensed. There is however no mention of BSD in libarc, which effectively means that it is in violation of BSD license.
Gotta love the ethics of the freedom fighters.
Just nitpicking.
Microsoft iPod
Point was that OP's analogy was invalid to begin with.
> This is akin to arresting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
This is also akin Hillary organizing illegal political rally against George Bush.
Consider low-level handshake protocols. There is, for example, an attack on SSL that allows recovering private RSA key by measuring response delays of a victim. These responses are mandated by a protocol, so they are (in a way) solicited.
What you described is a backdoor.
Rootkit is an OS-level subversion program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkit