It looks nifty and i just started reading the docs to see if I want to use it, but in a production environment using a new language is suicide, even if the people envolved DID know it already (training takes time), because there are probably bugs. It's also a scripting language and it doesn't compile, not a listed requirement but probably useful if you want to use the program in a corporate environment (though the specs weren't specific enough to be able to tell...)
If the boss knew, he would have given out a set of criteria that actually defined an extant language, instead of a set of imnpossible criteria.
I would go back and engage him in a discussion on which of these goals are most important, with the (unstated) goal of trying to convince him that whatever language you think would be best really is best.
Istead of looking at his criteria, look at the project and the goals, and make your own decision. It seems as though he wants a good language that's also easy enough for all of the programmers to use, so if you randomly pick C++ or java for instance, you could convincve him that it would do fine because almost everyone knows it well enough to code in it anyways, and it fits the requirements as well as any of the languages do. (This isn't an endorsement of C++, Java, or of any other language.)
Much of the 12,000 lines of code necessary to fly the helicopter were written by Kara Sprague (M.Eng. 2002 in electrical engineering and computer science) and Alex Shterenberg (M.Eng. 2000 in electrical engineering and computer science).
The problem that chip manufacturers have been having with the much wanted, useful swithch to other materials is that the processes developed so far are for silicon. with a new method, they would just develop applications for other metals, and it wouldn't just be crappy low end chips in other metals, but a good new etching process.
Which is that/.ers seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works. An assumption is made that the law has to have a logical, moral, or at least actual physical basis. None of these things are true. The problem us "Intelligent", "Nerdy" people have with the legal system, however, is deeper than it seems at first. Most of us have been led to believe that the world operates according to a set of physical laws. Inside a courtroom certain physical and logical laws may cease to apply, such as that of cause and effect, gravity, or that of the law of the buttered side down. This can lead to comedic side effects, such a the legislation mentioned earlier, or people floating around, as well as truely stange and interesting studies in the exciting dynamic field of buttered bread flipping.
No. It's not. The simple truth is that if a person in England tries to sue someone in the US of A for slander, (because there the burden of proof is on the defendant) they'd be laughed out of court. people cannot be forced to briung the site offline if they are not in the country that the lawsuit is in, and so the laws are mostly worthless.
I suppose it will take a trial case pursued by the EFF or somebody similar to actually show that the jurisdiction cannot work in this fashion. This will be especially obvious as soon as someone tries to extradite a US citizen to some muslim country where people cannot view "indecently clad" women in pictures, or say things "against Islam." Imagine someone in Afghanistan 6 months ago sueing the Baptist or Catholic or whatever church because their site contained information about Christianity.
"[The states] have asked Kollar-Kotelly to order Microsoft to sell a cheaper, stripped-down version of Windows..."
THANK YOU! All I need now is a worse version of windows. This "new" "stripped down version" will not contain many of the features of windows we have come to know and love: crashes, freezing, and it won't keep that old favorite, memory handling that requires more RAM than a 10-foot thick steel reinforced concrete doorway to dracula's castle. It will not include macros in outlook, buffer overflow vulnerabilities in uPNP, or even allow users to modify their settings in a way that will destroy their computer without a warning screen.
BUT there would be a upside to the remedy, including the fact that the new OS would cost less than a house (ok, less than a LARGE house) and will still run your computer. It may not allow you to access your files, but you will know they are safe. VERY safe. They are so safe that it will become uncertain if they even exist. It will have native support for high elvish, ojibwe, yoruba, aymara and, ever popular, frisian. These are the only languages it will support. Microsoft estimates that of the 87 people who speak one or more of these languages, 1 owns a computer. And he uses linux.
I haven't paid attention to this guy in the past, but WOW! Why is this bunch of random guesses (about 20% of the total number) and obvious "predictions" even being looked at? He says that he is right 90% of the time, which seems suspiciously like a record of window's uptime reliability, in that with the system given, it should be much higher if it were any good.
If all of his predictions were not obvious, and he got even 50% of them right, I would be impressed, but he seems to be using techniques perfected by fortunetellers centuries ago: make a couple of obvious predictions, and a couple of guesses with almost no basis, and then when a couple of the wild guesses come true, parade them around while ignoring the huge rate of incorrect guesses, and even using statistics to "show" that he makes good guesses.
What a load of bull, and we all seem to pay attention anyways!
Anyone who doesn't check where they get programs from if they run them as root needs to be running windows. Windows isn't evil, it's better for MOST computer users, and if you can't figure out stuff like this, why are you running what is essentially a OS written for people with some amount of expertise.
I'm not saying that people who do it are bad people, but if you screw up, you (should) know that linux isn't supposed to safeguard you from yourself, and should therefore be more careful. If you buy a real gun instead of a nerf gun, you need to realize the gun can be more useful than the nerf toy, but is also more dangerous. Make your choice, but think first.
I don't understand why people are so upset by this new fact. We were told before episode 1 that the new trilogy would be for Lucas's kids. I understood when people were amazed that the first episode was aimed at such a young target audience, but now that we were told, how can anyone really think that the movies won't be aimed at CHILDREN.
This new travesty is a horrible perversion of what should be a beautiful thing, but at least it's in charachter. He told us what he wanted to do. He's doing it. Quit complaining that "the target demographic for these films has changed a little since the original trilogy," because at this point, you shouldn't expect anything less from the producer of Episode 1.
The legality of the system is not determined by the declaration, and the fact that it was declared illegal somewhat recently only affects when it was known to be illegal, not it's actual legality.
Napster, as of now, was NEVER legal. Any trading done can be prosecuted no matter when it was done. Napster can be sued for what was traded on it's system at any point.
Dale Fuller: The new barbarians? is an interesting article about borland's resurgence as a real company in the marketplace, from thier slump for the past several years.
The article doesn't really come out and say it, but the reason borland is doing well now, and wasn't before, is the personnel. I find it amusing that they don't just come out and say it, but they refer, again and again to the "departures of key staffers" when they started their decline, and now, according to Fuller, "one of the major indicators is the number of cool programmers who want to work here--and we're now getting people back from Microsoft, from universities, from all over the world."
I guess what Robert A. Heinlein said is true: "brainpower is the scarcest commodity and the only one of real value."
I take it that you disagree with this Mr. Singer. So do I. You also claim that he doesn't deserve this award because he is a sick person and his "ethics" are not what you see as proper. I agree with you. He still deserves recognition for a new approach to a field that has not changged in decades if not centuries. To paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein: Anyone who thinks that their personal code of ethics are laws of nature hasn't been farther down the street than the corner store. (Boy I wish I had my books with me for a correct quote)
Obviously they aren't doing what you want them to be doing, so instead of whining, why don't you figure out what they are doing...
Firstly: They are not choosing people for what they did in a particular year, they are choosing people in general who have had important effects.
Secondly: In terms of entrepreneurship, he DID found a company that grew explosively, catered to a market including almost all people online, and offered a product everyone used. It was illegal. He got burned. That doesn't mean he wasn't an entrepreneur.
Thirdly: Shawn Fanning created, almost single-handedly, a new market niche, and a public awareness of an issue that had to be addressed, that of digital piracy. His work did, in fact, "contribute significantly to the advance of emerging technologies for the benefit of business and society" as their criteria requires.
If a person has to show how the device works/is constructed/is made in order to get a patent, then why don't they have to publish source code?
I'm sure this isn't true, but I'm not sure why...
"In particular, Congress intended that
regulations would permit internal-use software to qualify
for the credit only if, in addition to satisfying the
general requirements for credit eligibility, the taxpayer
can establish that the following three-part test is
satisfied: the software is innovative (as where the
software results in a reduction in cost, or improvement in
speed, that is substantial and economically significant);
the software development involves significant risk (as where
the taxpayer commits substantial resources to the
development of the software and there is substantial
uncertainty, because of technical risk, that such resources
would not be recovered in a reasonable period of time); and
the software is not commercially available for use by the
taxpayer (as where the software cannot be purchased, leased,
or licensed and used for the intended purpose without
modifications that would satisfy the first two
requirements). See H.R. Rep. No. 841, 99th Cong., 2d Sess.
II-73. Thus, Congress did not intend that the three-part
test in the legislative history would apply in lieu of the
general requirements for credit eligibility but, rather,
intended that the general requirements for credit
eligibility of section 41(d) also would have to be
satisfied. See H.R. Rep. No. 841 at II-73."
possibly there would have existed a legal precedant as such, but with a more recent ruling to the opposite effect, there now exists a different precedent
Slashdot Mirror
It looks nifty and i just started reading the docs to see if I want to use it, but in a production environment using a new language is suicide, even if the people envolved DID know it already (training takes time), because there are probably bugs. It's also a scripting language and it doesn't compile, not a listed requirement but probably useful if you want to use the program in a corporate environment (though the specs weren't specific enough to be able to tell...)
If the boss knew, he would have given out a set of criteria that actually defined an extant language, instead of a set of imnpossible criteria.
I would go back and engage him in a discussion on which of these goals are most important, with the (unstated) goal of trying to convince him that whatever language you think would be best really is best.
Istead of looking at his criteria, look at the project and the goals, and make your own decision. It seems as though he wants a good language that's also easy enough for all of the programmers to use, so if you randomly pick C++ or java for instance, you could convincve him that it would do fine because almost everyone knows it well enough to code in it anyways, and it fits the requirements as well as any of the languages do. (This isn't an endorsement of C++, Java, or of any other language.)
Now that would be a cool thing to hack!
The problem that chip manufacturers have been having with the much wanted, useful swithch to other materials is that the processes developed so far are for silicon. with a new method, they would just develop applications for other metals, and it wouldn't just be crappy low end chips in other metals, but a good new etching process.
Which is that /.ers seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works. An assumption is made that the law has to have a logical, moral, or at least actual physical basis. None of these things are true. The problem us "Intelligent", "Nerdy" people have with the legal system, however, is deeper than it seems at first. Most of us have been led to believe that the world operates according to a set of physical laws. Inside a courtroom certain physical and logical laws may cease to apply, such as that of cause and effect, gravity, or that of the law of the buttered side down. This can lead to comedic side effects, such a the legislation mentioned earlier, or people floating around, as well as truely stange and interesting studies in the exciting dynamic field of buttered bread flipping.
No. It's not. The simple truth is that if a person in England tries to sue someone in the US of A for slander, (because there the burden of proof is on the defendant) they'd be laughed out of court. people cannot be forced to briung the site offline if they are not in the country that the lawsuit is in, and so the laws are mostly worthless.
I suppose it will take a trial case pursued by the EFF or somebody similar to actually show that the jurisdiction cannot work in this fashion. This will be especially obvious as soon as someone tries to extradite a US citizen to some muslim country where people cannot view "indecently clad" women in pictures, or say things "against Islam." Imagine someone in Afghanistan 6 months ago sueing the Baptist or Catholic or whatever church because their site contained information about Christianity.
I'm just glad SOMEBODY noticed.
"[The states] have asked Kollar-Kotelly to order Microsoft to sell a cheaper, stripped-down version of Windows..."
THANK YOU! All I need now is a worse version of windows. This "new" "stripped down version" will not contain many of the features of windows we have come to know and love: crashes, freezing, and it won't keep that old favorite, memory handling that requires more RAM than a 10-foot thick steel reinforced concrete doorway to dracula's castle. It will not include macros in outlook, buffer overflow vulnerabilities in uPNP, or even allow users to modify their settings in a way that will destroy their computer without a warning screen.
BUT there would be a upside to the remedy, including the fact that the new OS would cost less than a house (ok, less than a LARGE house) and will still run your computer. It may not allow you to access your files, but you will know they are safe. VERY safe. They are so safe that it will become uncertain if they even exist. It will have native support for high elvish, ojibwe, yoruba, aymara and, ever popular, frisian. These are the only languages it will support. Microsoft estimates that of the 87 people who speak one or more of these languages, 1 owns a computer. And he uses linux.
I haven't paid attention to this guy in the past, but WOW! Why is this bunch of random guesses (about 20% of the total number) and obvious "predictions" even being looked at? He says that he is right 90% of the time, which seems suspiciously like a record of window's uptime reliability, in that with the system given, it should be much higher if it were any good.
If all of his predictions were not obvious, and he got even 50% of them right, I would be impressed, but he seems to be using techniques perfected by fortunetellers centuries ago: make a couple of obvious predictions, and a couple of guesses with almost no basis, and then when a couple of the wild guesses come true, parade them around while ignoring the huge rate of incorrect guesses, and even using statistics to "show" that he makes good guesses.
What a load of bull, and we all seem to pay attention anyways!
Anyone who doesn't check where they get programs from if they run them as root needs to be running windows. Windows isn't evil, it's better for MOST computer users, and if you can't figure out stuff like this, why are you running what is essentially a OS written for people with some amount of expertise.
I'm not saying that people who do it are bad people, but if you screw up, you (should) know that linux isn't supposed to safeguard you from yourself, and should therefore be more careful. If you buy a real gun instead of a nerf gun, you need to realize the gun can be more useful than the nerf toy, but is also more dangerous. Make your choice, but think first.
I don't understand why people are so upset by this new fact. We were told before episode 1 that the new trilogy would be for Lucas's kids. I understood when people were amazed that the first episode was aimed at such a young target audience, but now that we were told, how can anyone really think that the movies won't be aimed at CHILDREN.
This new travesty is a horrible perversion of what should be a beautiful thing, but at least it's in charachter. He told us what he wanted to do. He's doing it. Quit complaining that "the target demographic for these films has changed a little since the original trilogy," because at this point, you shouldn't expect anything less from the producer of Episode 1.
The legality of the system is not determined by the declaration, and the fact that it was declared illegal somewhat recently only affects when it was known to be illegal, not it's actual legality.
Napster, as of now, was NEVER legal. Any trading done can be prosecuted no matter when it was done. Napster can be sued for what was traded on it's system at any point.
Dale Fuller: The new barbarians? is an interesting article about borland's resurgence as a real company in the marketplace, from thier slump for the past several years. The article doesn't really come out and say it, but the reason borland is doing well now, and wasn't before, is the personnel. I find it amusing that they don't just come out and say it, but they refer, again and again to the "departures of key staffers" when they started their decline, and now, according to Fuller, "one of the major indicators is the number of cool programmers who want to work here--and we're now getting people back from Microsoft, from universities, from all over the world." I guess what Robert A. Heinlein said is true: "brainpower is the scarcest commodity and the only one of real value."
I take it that you disagree with this Mr. Singer. So do I. You also claim that he doesn't deserve this award because he is a sick person and his "ethics" are not what you see as proper. I agree with you. He still deserves recognition for a new approach to a field that has not changged in decades if not centuries. To paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein: Anyone who thinks that their personal code of ethics are laws of nature hasn't been farther down the street than the corner store. (Boy I wish I had my books with me for a correct quote)
Obviously they aren't doing what you want them to be doing, so instead of whining, why don't you figure out what they are doing...
Firstly: They are not choosing people for what they did in a particular year, they are choosing people in general who have had important effects.
Secondly: In terms of entrepreneurship, he DID found a company that grew explosively, catered to a market including almost all people online, and offered a product everyone used. It was illegal. He got burned. That doesn't mean he wasn't an entrepreneur.
Thirdly: Shawn Fanning created, almost single-handedly, a new market niche, and a public awareness of an issue that had to be addressed, that of digital piracy. His work did, in fact, "contribute significantly to the advance of emerging technologies for the benefit of business and society" as their criteria requires.
If a person has to show how the device works/is constructed/is made in order to get a patent, then why don't they have to publish source code? I'm sure this isn't true, but I'm not sure why...
"In particular, Congress intended that regulations would permit internal-use software to qualify for the credit only if, in addition to satisfying the general requirements for credit eligibility, the taxpayer can establish that the following three-part test is satisfied: the software is innovative (as where the software results in a reduction in cost, or improvement in speed, that is substantial and economically significant); the software development involves significant risk (as where the taxpayer commits substantial resources to the development of the software and there is substantial uncertainty, because of technical risk, that such resources would not be recovered in a reasonable period of time); and the software is not commercially available for use by the taxpayer (as where the software cannot be purchased, leased, or licensed and used for the intended purpose without modifications that would satisfy the first two requirements). See H.R. Rep. No. 841, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. II-73. Thus, Congress did not intend that the three-part test in the legislative history would apply in lieu of the general requirements for credit eligibility but, rather, intended that the general requirements for credit eligibility of section 41(d) also would have to be satisfied. See H.R. Rep. No. 841 at II-73."
the point is not that the isp deserved or didn't deserve this, because they got it, and legally that creates a precedant that is very harmful
possibly there would have existed a legal precedant as such, but with a more recent ruling to the opposite effect, there now exists a different precedent